3 ms·

This whole argument hinges on the statement that the GPL "does nothing for users" but is "annoying for developers". I dispute both of these claims. GPL is all

This whole argument hinges on the statement that the GPL "does nothing for users" but is "annoying for developers". I dispute both of these claims. GPL is all about doing something for users. It is users who are able to request source code. My entire network setup is based on the fact that I can customize my router which I can only do because users were able to request the source for the router in order to customize it. When it comes to "annoying for developers" we need to be clear. The GPL is annoying for developers of software that is not open source. It annoys them because it says they must either take the open source deal or else rewrite it themselves. Apple has famously used a lot of time and money to rewrite GPLd thengs. This is the goal. OTOH open source developers need not be annoyed by any GPL dependency since they can always use it without any trouble to themselves.

joe_the_user 1y ago
This, Moreover, a company can release a GPL'd version of their software and also offer a commercial license for their software (see Qt etc). So someone who's charging for their software can use it if they themselves pay. Some commercial vendors might annoyed by even this. But it would seem they "doth protest too much".
aleph_minus_one 1y ago
> The GPL is annoying for developers of software that is not open source. It is also annoying for developers of open-source software that is not GPL-licensed.
- singpolyma3 1y ago
  It doesn't need to be, since they can still use it and keep their license the same etc.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
Expurple 1y ago
Compared to permissive licences (from the user's POV), GPL is merery a guarantee that a proprietary fork won't left you behind in the dust overnight. That's a rather strong guarantee that most people (including myself) don't need. I'm fine with a "plain" guarantee to fork the last free version. In exchange, I usually get better, well-supported software with more corporate contributions. > Apple has famously used a lot of time and money to rewrite GPLd thengs. This is the goal. As an aside, that's a terrible goal. Rewriting the same projects over and over is a waste of human potential. We could be solving unsolved problems and actually making the world better, instead of pursuing this weird and misguided notion of "fairness"
- singpolyma3 1y ago
  It's not about fairness. It's about making bad actors like Apple pay to do their own bad work. If they chose to make open source software and actually make the world better we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
  - Expurple 1y ago
    Do you consider open-sourcing the software a necessary precondition for making the world better? In other words, can a company make the world better by making proprietary software? In my opinion, that's obviously true. (Although I too dislike Apple specifically) Your approach forces every company to redo the work, even the "good" ones. In fact, that probably makes the situation worse, because it raises the barrier to entry and forces companies to choose agressive and hostile business models in order to get that investment back. If a new "More Ethical Apple" could be started instantly with no software investment, we would have one, the users would be able to switch, and would directly benefit from this
    - alpaca128 1y ago
      > can a company make the world better by making proprietary software? If you assume a company that does not have any profit driven incentive to be anti-competitive and less accessible to some people, yes. But that's like assuming dictatorship can work if the dictator is just wise and benevolent enough. It's nice to think about but not viable in reality. > it raises the barrier to entry and forces companies to choose agressive and hostile business models in order to get that investment back You assume that corporations would not choose aggressive and hostile business models if they weren't forced to, which is obviously wrong. > If a new "More Ethical Apple" could be started instantly with no software investment This would not be possible with licenses that allow Apple to keep everything proprietary, which is what any profit driven company is incentivized to do. In other words, you need GPL for this scenario to be even theoretically possible.
TuxSH 1y ago
> OTOH open source developers need not be annoyed by any GPL dependency since they can always use it without any trouble to themselves. Counterpoint: GPLv2-only is an absolute PITA to deal with but that's the point; GPL (especially v2-only or v3+section7b,7c) is good at preventing hostile forks

joe_the_user 1y ago

This, Moreover, a company can release a GPL'd version of their software and also offer a commercial license for their software (see Qt etc). So someone who's charging for their software can use it if they themselves pay. Some commercial vendors might annoyed by even this. But it would seem they "doth protest too much".

aleph_minus_one 1y ago

> The GPL is annoying for developers of software that is not open source. It is also annoying for developers of open-source software that is not GPL-licensed.

singpolyma3 1y ago
It doesn't need to be, since they can still use it and keep their license the same etc.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

Expurple 1y ago

Compared to permissive licences (from the user's POV), GPL is merery a guarantee that a proprietary fork won't left you behind in the dust overnight. That's a rather strong guarantee that most people (including myself) don't need. I'm fine with a "plain" guarantee to fork the last free version. In exchange, I usually get better, well-supported software with more corporate contributions. > Apple has famously used a lot of time and money to rewrite GPLd thengs. This is the goal. As an aside, that's a terrible goal. Rewriting the same projects over and over is a waste of human potential. We could be solving unsolved problems and actually making the world better, instead of pursuing this weird and misguided notion of "fairness"

singpolyma3 1y ago
It's not about fairness. It's about making bad actors like Apple pay to do their own bad work. If they chose to make open source software and actually make the world better we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
- Expurple 1y ago
  Do you consider open-sourcing the software a necessary precondition for making the world better? In other words, can a company make the world better by making proprietary software? In my opinion, that's obviously true. (Although I too dislike Apple specifically) Your approach forces every company to redo the work, even the "good" ones. In fact, that probably makes the situation worse, because it raises the barrier to entry and forces companies to choose agressive and hostile business models in order to get that investment back. If a new "More Ethical Apple" could be started instantly with no software investment, we would have one, the users would be able to switch, and would directly benefit from this
  - alpaca128 1y ago
    > can a company make the world better by making proprietary software? If you assume a company that does not have any profit driven incentive to be anti-competitive and less accessible to some people, yes. But that's like assuming dictatorship can work if the dictator is just wise and benevolent enough. It's nice to think about but not viable in reality. > it raises the barrier to entry and forces companies to choose agressive and hostile business models in order to get that investment back You assume that corporations would not choose aggressive and hostile business models if they weren't forced to, which is obviously wrong. > If a new "More Ethical Apple" could be started instantly with no software investment This would not be possible with licenses that allow Apple to keep everything proprietary, which is what any profit driven company is incentivized to do. In other words, you need GPL for this scenario to be even theoretically possible.

TuxSH 1y ago

> OTOH open source developers need not be annoyed by any GPL dependency since they can always use it without any trouble to themselves. Counterpoint: GPLv2-only is an absolute PITA to deal with but that's the point; GPL (especially v2-only or v3+section7b,7c) is good at preventing hostile forks