4 ms·

GPL is very restrictive when in it comes to integrating GPL libraries into closed-source applications. Here is short description on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipe

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.

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.