3 ms·

There simply can't be a perfect licence, since the licence reflects the conditions the author/owner value, and well, people value different things, something li

There simply can't be a perfect licence, since the licence reflects the conditions the author/owner value, and well, people value different things, something licence profileration is a good indication of. Beyond that, I think we can (imo) see that different types of licences are more popular in certain types of open source projects. GPL is very popular for 'full application'-style projects, more permissive licences like BSD/LGPL etc are in my experience more likely to be used in libraries, frameworks, component code in general. Antirez wants to promote his personal choice, the BSD-licence, and that's perfectly fine, other programmers are vocal in their support for other licences aswell. One thing struck me though (apart from the complaints concerning 'another' available licence which felt unecessary), which is that after his words of how he 'just wants to better the world with his code' his concern of 'what open source does not recieve enough of' boils down to money, not code contributions. And as such he suggests that companies should send part of their earnings the programmer's way, not an unreasonable request by any measure (although sadly perhaps unrealistic). It's no surprise then however, that he does not favour GPL, in which the source code is paramount. There's no right or wrong here of course, just different preferences, Antirez has little interest in source code contributions but feels that monetary contributions are lacking, the GPL on the other hand is all about 'the source code' and that it (and enhancements made to it) remains open. Choice is good!

antirez 14y ago
I agree 100% with you, but one reason why lately I look at GPL with suspicious is that it's long and complex enough that I'm not sure every contributor to GPL fully realizes the implications. It's not just "if you modify you need to release the modified version" as I believed. The SDR Touch affair clearly shows it. Also the problem when linking to closed source code. This idea that it's ok to make money using the GPL in one way (just using the software as it is, as a service, like when you run a copy of MySQL) and not into another way (by using a GPL library in your closed source app, just releasing back what you changed in the GPL code) is very odd IMHO, probably not in the spirit of code sharing.
- keenerd 14y ago
  Well yeah, the GPL states that it needs to be trivially easy for end-users to replace the GPL chunk with their own code. Because in the past (Tivo) GPL code was used against people. Two separate packages is the simplest way to do it. And I feel the 'no bundling' thing is a little over the top. As long as rtl_tcp was a separate file that you could easily replace, it seems it fit the letter of the license. I know I'm[1] not going to convince you, but the GPL exists for a reason as does the BSD. BSD puts the rights of the programmer first and foremost. This is useful at times, but it also lets bad apples ruin a code base. GPL puts protecting the code first. (And to a lesser extent, the end-user.) In the end, it means that GPL code is basically immortal because no one person/group can control the code base. [1] keenerd from rtl-sdr

antirez 14y ago

I agree 100% with you, but one reason why lately I look at GPL with suspicious is that it's long and complex enough that I'm not sure every contributor to GPL fully realizes the implications. It's not just "if you modify you need to release the modified version" as I believed. The SDR Touch affair clearly shows it. Also the problem when linking to closed source code. This idea that it's ok to make money using the GPL in one way (just using the software as it is, as a service, like when you run a copy of MySQL) and not into another way (by using a GPL library in your closed source app, just releasing back what you changed in the GPL code) is very odd IMHO, probably not in the spirit of code sharing.

keenerd 14y ago
Well yeah, the GPL states that it needs to be trivially easy for end-users to replace the GPL chunk with their own code. Because in the past (Tivo) GPL code was used against people. Two separate packages is the simplest way to do it. And I feel the 'no bundling' thing is a little over the top. As long as rtl_tcp was a separate file that you could easily replace, it seems it fit the letter of the license. I know I'm[1] not going to convince you, but the GPL exists for a reason as does the BSD. BSD puts the rights of the programmer first and foremost. This is useful at times, but it also lets bad apples ruin a code base. GPL puts protecting the code first. (And to a lesser extent, the end-user.) In the end, it means that GPL code is basically immortal because no one person/group can control the code base. [1] keenerd from rtl-sdr