14 ms·

Interesting point of view and i can understand that he embraces the "total freedom" BSD license gives (aka "do whatever you want, i don't care"), but in contras

by buster 14y ago

Interesting point of view and i can understand that he embraces the "total freedom" BSD license gives (aka "do whatever you want, i don't care"), but in contrast i can also understand the GPL and i would argue that GPL is more about "contributing to humanity" then BSD just because it forces someone to contribute back and thus enforce more "contributions" to humanity then a formerly BSD licensed closed down fork of something that once was freely available. As a developer i enjoy BSD because i know i don't have to take care of license issues and just go ahead in contrast to "mhh, GPL, LGPL, version 2 or 3, MPL, Apache, what can and what can't i do?!". All in all, from my point of view, GPL has a very good motive and approach when it comes to "contribute to humanity", even more so then BSD. edit: Also about his thought "if something is useful people will contribute back in some way, because maintaining forks is not great.": This just doesn't apply to software companies that have a closed down software approach. The in-house forks are just frequently rebased but never contributed back. In my life i have seen several in-house repositories including a lot of BSD licensed libraries that never were contributed back. It's sad but it's just the outcome of closed-down "Whatever we pay for in development work puts us ahead of competition, we don't want to help competition, we leave it closed source".

notimetorelax 14y ago
GPL is very restrictive when in it comes to integrating GPL libraries into closed-source applications. Here is short description on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Link... I think it is ludicrous to require to open source an application that may be using library as is without any modifications.
- buster 14y ago
  That's where the LGPL comes in. I know the difference between GPL and BSD, thanks :) It may be ludicrous, but then again, isn't it ludicrous to base a closed source program on open source code, make money of the work of others and NOT contribute back?
- rbanffy 14y ago
  > I think it is ludicrous to require to open source an application that may be using library as is without any modifications. If it's my library you do as I say or you don't use it. If you don't like the license, you are free to write your own library. The GPL is about giving freedom to the users.
  - happimess 14y ago
    > The GPL is about giving freedom to the users. > If it's my library you do as I say or you don't use it. That sounds more like giving control to the developers than giving freedom to the users.
    - rbanffy 14y ago
      > giving control to the developers The only freedom GPL denies the developer is the freedom to take freedoms away from their users.
  - notimetorelax 14y ago
    True. I realize now that this phrase may offend contributors to GPL licensed projects, please let me clarify what I mean. Working for companies it is a rare occasion that we would open source a project, consequently most of the time we cannot use GPL libraries. On the other hand Apache, BSD and similarly licensed libraries are the safe option. So for me it would be ludicrous to prevent others from benefiting from my OS libraries.
    - rbanffy 14y ago
      > it is a rare occasion that we would open source a project Unless your company is shipping binaries to third parties, I don't think there is a need to open-source your applications.
- antirez 14y ago
  It is worse than that. You can't even integrate a GPLed server program with a closed source client program, only interacting via TCP, if they constitute a single "bundle". See the "SDR Touch" story here: http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/osmocom-sdr/2013-January/000453.html http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/osmocom-sdr/2013-January/...
  - buster 14y ago
    Antirez, how would you feel about a company that forks redis, renames it, removes all references to you and sells it successfully to some enterprises as next-gen super database, making a lot of money? Maybe even enhancing it, fixing bugs, or doing some other work in a closed-source manner (documentation, translation stuff.). In your post you say that you appreciate when people make money out of your work but you also seem to have the faith that people contribute back because forks are inconvenient.
    - johnbellone 14y ago
      Redis is a poor example because it is licensed under BSD which you can do exactly what you're describing. If you think there's something wrong with a corporation (likely a few hackers) selling open source software and making money off of it then, well, you simply don't belong in open source. This is exactly how Redhat operates. But there's obviously a difference between making money (re-branding) and then attempting to re-license (or break the existing one, assuming GPL, by not contributing back).
      - buster 14y ago
        I think Red Hat is a prime example of a successful opensource company and if every company would operate like that we wouldn't need GPL. Clearly, that's a bad example. Red Hat does contribute to BSD licensed software as well, it's not at all what i described..
    - Mahn 14y ago
      How would you feel about someone taking pictures of you while you are using the restroom? clearly we should ban cameras from restrooms and remove all sorts of windows. In fact, we should demand all pictures taken with a camera to be submitted to a public archive, just to make sure no evil deeds are done.
- saurik 14y ago
  This is a matter of opinion; like, on the other side of this, one could argue that people who expect to be able to use the works of others without providing anything in return are being inherently selfish, and that the system should be designed to limit the scope of their damage. In this case, if you'd like to get the functionality of that GPL library for your product, your quid quo pro is going to be the source code of the system you built that relies on it, and which apparently wouldn't exist if you didn't have access to that GPL library. (Note: if your system could exist without that GPL library, as you could easily reimplement it yourself or use an alternative, then the idea from GPL is "ok, then you go ahead and do that, and we'll keep improving our library, at least knowing that you didn't benefit from it".) In essence, by having put a library out under BSD, you are simply doing free work for others who are able to take what you did and contribute nothing back; in comparison, using GPL, the people who would have contributed back are not affected, and the people who don't have to look elsewhere: it is a restriction that provides a direct benefit.
  - notimetorelax 14y ago
    I respect this point of view and somewhat agree with it, on the other hand I have received great benefit from Apache, BSD, etc. licensed software. So when I contribute to OSS I make sure to use similarly permissive licenses. Yes there will be others who profit from the OSS and don't contribute but I don't think that there's a way to prevent it.
justincormack 14y ago
"it forces someone to contribute back and thus enforce more "contributions"". Not sure if trying to coerce someones behaviour is a "contribution". It is trying to change the world and peoples behaviour, which is a different kind of thing mixed in, a sort of moral contribution perhaps, a gift with strings attached not a straight gift.
- buster 14y ago
  The term "viral license" is a really descriptive term ;) My point is that i think that antirez has too much faith in humanity when it comes to business. A company selling software doesn't necessarily care about forks being inconvenient. A typical closed-source company only thinks in terms of money and thus potentially contributing to open-source also contributes to your competition.
  - justincormack 14y ago
    I think more people are realising that "Open source was seen as more of a tool to manipulate the market and create favourable circumstances, rather than a goal in itself." http://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/Open-source-is-just-a-weapon http://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/Open-source-is-just-a-... - Hence Android in order to fight Apple etc. It can help destroy your competitions market rather than helping them.
    - pi18n 14y ago
      What a good observation! Commoditize the complements by dropping a free competitive software that any entity can use and modify. And they've also restricted modifications from other companies with the trademark, so they have control over that as well. It's quite brilliant.
- vy8vWJlco 14y ago
  I consider the GPL a declaration of user rights (the right to source code, for all users, in perpetuity). I like freedom. I would actually prefer the BSD license if my experiences hadn't convinced me of a different human nature. It's an unbalanced equation. I would happily go with the BSD license if everyone else did (or at least "mostly everyone" else did), for the same reason that I would support gun control if it applied to everyone, including police. I don't consider either practical for users/netizens. Thus, the GPL guarantees certain "rights." :)
MatthewPhillips 14y ago
The MPL is a good balance between "do what you want" and contributing back. I used to use it in all of my projects but I found that because people don't know it well, they are scared of using it so I've switched to MIT.
- qznc 14y ago
  The MPL belongs to the "copyleft" category, whereas MIT is "permissive". So, you made quite a switch. Basically, copyleft licences require modifications to use the same licence, while permissive licences allow proprietary derivatives.
delano 14y ago
i would argue that GPL is more about "contributing to humanity" then BSD just because it forces someone to contribute back and thus enforce more "contributions" to humanity In theory yes, but it's like telling people that they should attend Sunday prayer service. That's like, your opinion man. In any case, once software is out there, it's out there. Maybe one fork or another makes some closed progress but it's only a matter of time before an open source equivalent comes along. Has there ever been any closed-source software that's important to humanity but doesn't have an open source equivalent?
- buster 14y ago
  It is frequently said that Linux doesn't have photoshop, autocad, pro/engineer and whatever else there is for expensive professional software.
  - delano 14y ago
    Hey Gimp isn't so bad. But either way, you're right. Is there anything close to an opensource equivalent of Logic? Absolutely not. But great closed-source software doesn't preclude a great opensource equivalent. It may not be available right now but there's nothing stopping someone or some group from making it available in the near future.
  - justincormack 14y ago
    Linux has plenty of expensive professional software in fields like rendering for film and so on where it is a real platform. People who use Photoshop just like Macs so the Linux market is not very viable right now.
mkhattab 14y ago
I like ESR's opinion on reciprocal licensing like the GPL and that is the market punishes those companies that take the source closed. In-house forks are probably hacks that contain specific business logic or minor enhancements. ESR best explains it in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEPg2M1qbEs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEPg2M1qbEs
- buster 14y ago
  I've seen libraries in-house that are open source but have been abandoned years ago by their original community. Those libraries are pretty much lost to the general public but live a happy live as closed source libraries which are maintained and fixed.
  - mkhattab 14y ago
    If those libraries were abandoned by the community then the significance of taking the library closed by some company that needs to maintain its legacy codebase is probably minimal or irrelevant.
Mahn 14y ago
In a non capitalist world where everybody codes for fun GPL would sound great, but in the actual real world there are decent and acceptable use cases where it makes sense not to "contribute back", e.g. a business might not want their competitors to copy-paste the code of its core product.
- taylodl 14y ago
  For commercial use you want to use components that have been LGPL'd. Using LGPL'd components to build your application does not require your application to be either GPL'd or LGPL'd. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_Licen... for information on LGPL.
- gillianseed 14y ago
  The fast development Linux enjoys is the result of lots of 'capitalist' companies cooperating under the GPL so it's certainly not a case of one or the other. Certain types of business, like that of using open source but not wanting to contribute 'the secret sauce' back is obviously not compatible with the GPL. But for that there are other licences.

by buster 14y ago

notimetorelax 14y ago

GPL is very restrictive when in it comes to integrating GPL libraries into closed-source applications. Here is short description on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Link... I think it is ludicrous to require to open source an application that may be using library as is without any modifications.

buster 14y ago
That's where the LGPL comes in. I know the difference between GPL and BSD, thanks :) It may be ludicrous, but then again, isn't it ludicrous to base a closed source program on open source code, make money of the work of others and NOT contribute back?
rbanffy 14y ago
> I think it is ludicrous to require to open source an application that may be using library as is without any modifications. If it's my library you do as I say or you don't use it. If you don't like the license, you are free to write your own library. The GPL is about giving freedom to the users.
- happimess 14y ago
  > The GPL is about giving freedom to the users. > If it's my library you do as I say or you don't use it. That sounds more like giving control to the developers than giving freedom to the users.
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    > giving control to the developers The only freedom GPL denies the developer is the freedom to take freedoms away from their users.
- notimetorelax 14y ago
  True. I realize now that this phrase may offend contributors to GPL licensed projects, please let me clarify what I mean. Working for companies it is a rare occasion that we would open source a project, consequently most of the time we cannot use GPL libraries. On the other hand Apache, BSD and similarly licensed libraries are the safe option. So for me it would be ludicrous to prevent others from benefiting from my OS libraries.
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    > it is a rare occasion that we would open source a project Unless your company is shipping binaries to third parties, I don't think there is a need to open-source your applications.
antirez 14y ago
It is worse than that. You can't even integrate a GPLed server program with a closed source client program, only interacting via TCP, if they constitute a single "bundle". See the "SDR Touch" story here: http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/osmocom-sdr/2013-January/000453.html http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/osmocom-sdr/2013-January/...
- buster 14y ago
  Antirez, how would you feel about a company that forks redis, renames it, removes all references to you and sells it successfully to some enterprises as next-gen super database, making a lot of money? Maybe even enhancing it, fixing bugs, or doing some other work in a closed-source manner (documentation, translation stuff.). In your post you say that you appreciate when people make money out of your work but you also seem to have the faith that people contribute back because forks are inconvenient.
  - johnbellone 14y ago
    Redis is a poor example because it is licensed under BSD which you can do exactly what you're describing. If you think there's something wrong with a corporation (likely a few hackers) selling open source software and making money off of it then, well, you simply don't belong in open source. This is exactly how Redhat operates. But there's obviously a difference between making money (re-branding) and then attempting to re-license (or break the existing one, assuming GPL, by not contributing back).
    - buster 14y ago
      I think Red Hat is a prime example of a successful opensource company and if every company would operate like that we wouldn't need GPL. Clearly, that's a bad example. Red Hat does contribute to BSD licensed software as well, it's not at all what i described..
  - Mahn 14y ago
    How would you feel about someone taking pictures of you while you are using the restroom? clearly we should ban cameras from restrooms and remove all sorts of windows. In fact, we should demand all pictures taken with a camera to be submitted to a public archive, just to make sure no evil deeds are done.
saurik 14y ago
This is a matter of opinion; like, on the other side of this, one could argue that people who expect to be able to use the works of others without providing anything in return are being inherently selfish, and that the system should be designed to limit the scope of their damage. In this case, if you'd like to get the functionality of that GPL library for your product, your quid quo pro is going to be the source code of the system you built that relies on it, and which apparently wouldn't exist if you didn't have access to that GPL library. (Note: if your system could exist without that GPL library, as you could easily reimplement it yourself or use an alternative, then the idea from GPL is "ok, then you go ahead and do that, and we'll keep improving our library, at least knowing that you didn't benefit from it".) In essence, by having put a library out under BSD, you are simply doing free work for others who are able to take what you did and contribute nothing back; in comparison, using GPL, the people who would have contributed back are not affected, and the people who don't have to look elsewhere: it is a restriction that provides a direct benefit.
- notimetorelax 14y ago
  I respect this point of view and somewhat agree with it, on the other hand I have received great benefit from Apache, BSD, etc. licensed software. So when I contribute to OSS I make sure to use similarly permissive licenses. Yes there will be others who profit from the OSS and don't contribute but I don't think that there's a way to prevent it.

justincormack 14y ago

"it forces someone to contribute back and thus enforce more "contributions"". Not sure if trying to coerce someones behaviour is a "contribution". It is trying to change the world and peoples behaviour, which is a different kind of thing mixed in, a sort of moral contribution perhaps, a gift with strings attached not a straight gift.

buster 14y ago
The term "viral license" is a really descriptive term ;) My point is that i think that antirez has too much faith in humanity when it comes to business. A company selling software doesn't necessarily care about forks being inconvenient. A typical closed-source company only thinks in terms of money and thus potentially contributing to open-source also contributes to your competition.
- justincormack 14y ago
  I think more people are realising that "Open source was seen as more of a tool to manipulate the market and create favourable circumstances, rather than a goal in itself." http://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/Open-source-is-just-a-weapon http://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/Open-source-is-just-a-... - Hence Android in order to fight Apple etc. It can help destroy your competitions market rather than helping them.
  - pi18n 14y ago
    What a good observation! Commoditize the complements by dropping a free competitive software that any entity can use and modify. And they've also restricted modifications from other companies with the trademark, so they have control over that as well. It's quite brilliant.
vy8vWJlco 14y ago
I consider the GPL a declaration of user rights (the right to source code, for all users, in perpetuity). I like freedom. I would actually prefer the BSD license if my experiences hadn't convinced me of a different human nature. It's an unbalanced equation. I would happily go with the BSD license if everyone else did (or at least "mostly everyone" else did), for the same reason that I would support gun control if it applied to everyone, including police. I don't consider either practical for users/netizens. Thus, the GPL guarantees certain "rights." :)

MatthewPhillips 14y ago

The MPL is a good balance between "do what you want" and contributing back. I used to use it in all of my projects but I found that because people don't know it well, they are scared of using it so I've switched to MIT.

qznc 14y ago
The MPL belongs to the "copyleft" category, whereas MIT is "permissive". So, you made quite a switch. Basically, copyleft licences require modifications to use the same licence, while permissive licences allow proprietary derivatives.

delano 14y ago

i would argue that GPL is more about "contributing to humanity" then BSD just because it forces someone to contribute back and thus enforce more "contributions" to humanity In theory yes, but it's like telling people that they should attend Sunday prayer service. That's like, your opinion man. In any case, once software is out there, it's out there. Maybe one fork or another makes some closed progress but it's only a matter of time before an open source equivalent comes along. Has there ever been any closed-source software that's important to humanity but doesn't have an open source equivalent?

buster 14y ago
It is frequently said that Linux doesn't have photoshop, autocad, pro/engineer and whatever else there is for expensive professional software.
- delano 14y ago
  Hey Gimp isn't so bad. But either way, you're right. Is there anything close to an opensource equivalent of Logic? Absolutely not. But great closed-source software doesn't preclude a great opensource equivalent. It may not be available right now but there's nothing stopping someone or some group from making it available in the near future.
- justincormack 14y ago
  Linux has plenty of expensive professional software in fields like rendering for film and so on where it is a real platform. People who use Photoshop just like Macs so the Linux market is not very viable right now.

mkhattab 14y ago

I like ESR's opinion on reciprocal licensing like the GPL and that is the market punishes those companies that take the source closed. In-house forks are probably hacks that contain specific business logic or minor enhancements. ESR best explains it in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEPg2M1qbEs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEPg2M1qbEs

buster 14y ago
I've seen libraries in-house that are open source but have been abandoned years ago by their original community. Those libraries are pretty much lost to the general public but live a happy live as closed source libraries which are maintained and fixed.
- mkhattab 14y ago
  If those libraries were abandoned by the community then the significance of taking the library closed by some company that needs to maintain its legacy codebase is probably minimal or irrelevant.

Mahn 14y ago

In a non capitalist world where everybody codes for fun GPL would sound great, but in the actual real world there are decent and acceptable use cases where it makes sense not to "contribute back", e.g. a business might not want their competitors to copy-paste the code of its core product.

taylodl 14y ago
For commercial use you want to use components that have been LGPL'd. Using LGPL'd components to build your application does not require your application to be either GPL'd or LGPL'd. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_Licen... for information on LGPL.
gillianseed 14y ago
The fast development Linux enjoys is the result of lots of 'capitalist' companies cooperating under the GPL so it's certainly not a case of one or the other. Certain types of business, like that of using open source but not wanting to contribute 'the secret sauce' back is obviously not compatible with the GPL. But for that there are other licences.