5 ms·

I think it's pretty obvious this is a 5 year old article. And in fact, it has ideas that are much more appropriate to 10 years ago than today. GPL is a hindran

I think it's pretty obvious this is a 5 year old article. And in fact, it has ideas that are much more appropriate to 10 years ago than today. GPL is a hindrance to your code, not a help... unless you're lucky enough to have your code become popular with a large open source community. GPL prevents any proprietary software maker from using your software. It requires that if you use the code, your software also be GPL. Well, good luck with that. Software companies need to make money for a living, and most of them want to do it selling their software, not hoping someone will pay them to support their software. In practice there's no difference between BSD and GPL in the worst case, and in the best case, BSD is better. Worst case: Some awesome devs make Cool GPL Software™. Hundreds of large proprietary software companies like the look of the software, but it's GPL, so they can't use it. They use something else. Cool GPL Software™ loses out on all the manpower that could have been given to it by proprietary software makers. vs. BSD: Some awesome devs make Cool BSD Software™. Hundreds of large proprietary software companies like the look of the software, and use it, but never open source their changes. Cool BSD Software™ loses out on all the manpower that could have been given to it by proprietary software makers. end result: the same, but the BSD guys feel butthurt, and the GPL guys feel ignored Now, the best case, which is what actually happens quite often these days: GPL (same as above) vs. BSD: Some awesome devs make Cool BSD Software™. Hundreds of large proprietary software companies like the look of the software, and use it. Some of them contribute their work to the original BSD project, because it's good karma, good publicity, and keeps the community around that software alive. Cool BSD Software™ gains a bunch of hard work from devs who get paid to work on their software 40+ hours a week. end result: GPL guys feel ignore, BSD guys feel elated. This is why I'll never use GPL for any software I write.

jcbrand 14y ago
> Some awesome devs make Cool GPL Software™. Hundreds of large proprietary software companies like the look of the software, but it's GPL, so they can't use it. Yeah, good think Linux is BSD, otherwise it wouldn't have any companies writing code for it. Oh wait...
- unconed 14y ago
  The only reason Linux being GPL is not a big hindrance is because most people use it as a black box to run independent code on. The barrier between GPL and non-GPLd code matches neatly with "stuff we'll never touch". With most software, being popular means you're a library, and GPL is a kiss of death for many uses. Edit: And yes, there is LGPL, but its language is completely unsuitable for anything non-binary, like scripting languages, and hence could use some updating. If I import a node.js module into my namespace, am I merely linking to it or not? What if I start monkeypatching it?
  - gillianseed 14y ago
    >and GPL is a kiss of death for many uses. GPL is a 'kiss of death' for proprietary uses. So yes, needless to say, if your code is aimed at being used by both open source AND proprietary then GPL is NOT the choice. However if you are not interested in supporting proprietary programs with code and want access to any enhancements made to the code you've released then GPL is a perfectly valid choice.
    - unconed 14y ago
      The argument ignores that GPL is a giant stink eye for many people. It deters people from wanting to make enhancements in the first place... there's no point in having rights to enhancements that are not being made. It doesn't matter if technically they could still use it without violating the license, they simply do not want to. GPL works great until someone builds a superior non-GPL-licensed alternative. Then it becomes irrelevant.
      - gillianseed 14y ago
        'And permissive licences is a giant stink eye for many people. It deters people wanting to make enhancements in the first place. There's no point with enhancements being made when they are kept under proprietary lock and key.' There, your arguments hold no water. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' licence, there is only the needs of the code author/owner. And if someone builds a 'superior' alternative then it doesn't much matter what licence it uses, the point is it being 'superior' code which in turn is what would make something 'irrelevant'.
Nursie 14y ago
GPL (same as above) FAIL.
skore 14y ago
> GPL guys feel ignore[d], BSD guys feel elated. Well that's quite a big "speak for yourself" if I ever saw one. If you're only in it for being recognized, ANY project you embark upon will be a huge disappointment, at least for quite a long while. On the contrary, I think most FOSS projects solve a need, particularly (and yes, sometimes only) for the lead developer. If it solves the needs of others, they will jump in. The license doesn't really enter into that part of the equation. It's only about whether or not you want to make a call on what that community around your work looks like and evolves. You're very much forcing the argument by making it all about the attention of "large proprietary software companies". But there are... other entities besides large proprietary software companies and I rather enjoy seeing where those people are going.
- NateDad 14y ago
  I didn't mean they care about recognition... I meant, no community forms around their product, because a huge portion of the developers that would like to use it, can't. I never said "large" companies. Small companies can't use GPL in their software either, if they want to sell their software. For-profit companies aren't evil, in fact many of them do a lot of good things, including contributing back to open source projects with time paid for by their closed source products. I think the mindset of "all for-profit companies are evil" is a very 2003 way of thinking.
  - NateDad 14y ago
    (note... I did say large.. my bad... still valid that small companies can't use GPL either)
  - skore 14y ago
    There are a lot of for-profit companies that use GPL. I have one myself (albeit a very, very small one). As for community - I think community is often more corresponding to usefulness of code, not license of code. That's why there is often a huge "community" around very useful proprietary code. To me, it's about choosing which kind of community you want and I want the kind that the GPL enables and protects.
gnosis 14y ago
"GPL is a hindrance to your code, not a help... unless you're lucky enough to have your code become popular with a large open source community." On the contrary. GPL helps those people that I want using my code to do so. Namely, those people who would contribute code back under the GPL. The GPL encourages them to do so, while BSD hurts this cause. So it's BSD that is a hinderance to my code, not GPL. "GPL prevents any proprietary software maker from using your software." Good. They can go fuck themselves. Proprietary software makes can pay programmers to write software for them. I'm not going to help them for nothing if they're not going to contribute any changes they make back. "Software companies need to make money for a living, and most of them want to do it selling their software, not hoping someone will pay them to support their software." They're welcome to try to make that money without my giving my code away to them for free. "In practice there's no difference between BSD and GPL in the worst case, and in the best case, BSD is better." You're dreaming. GPL has proven its value time and again. The only reason to use BSD is if you want to help someone make a profit for free, without them contributing anything back, and let your own code be assimilated and made closed-source. I choose not to do that, thank you very much. "Some awesome devs make Cool GPL Software™. Hundreds of large proprietary software companies like the look of the software, but it's GPL, so they can't use it." Once again, fuck large proprietary companies. I have zero sympathy for them, and aren't going to be slaving away for them for free.
- natefinch 14y ago
  I never said large. Small proprietary companies also can't use GPL. I guess, fuck them, too? Fuck anyone who wants to actually make money writing software for a living? How very 1998 of you. Doh, I did say large. Well, crap. How about "thousands of small proprietary companies..." ?
  - gillianseed 14y ago
    Still doesn't mean I owe them anything, if I want to give away code for proprietary companies to use then that's genererous and perfectly fine. Likewise there's not something wrong with with only writing open source for open source, where you will be priviledged to have any enhancements made to your code available to you. And if 'you actually want to make money writing software' then you really can't demand that there should be code lying around for you to use and sell. Complaints about people not wanting to write code that proprietary companies can use for free and sell simply appals me. As if the 'companies' should have some god-given right to use open source and make money?

jcbrand 14y ago

> Some awesome devs make Cool GPL Software™. Hundreds of large proprietary software companies like the look of the software, but it's GPL, so they can't use it. Yeah, good think Linux is BSD, otherwise it wouldn't have any companies writing code for it. Oh wait...

unconed 14y ago
The only reason Linux being GPL is not a big hindrance is because most people use it as a black box to run independent code on. The barrier between GPL and non-GPLd code matches neatly with "stuff we'll never touch". With most software, being popular means you're a library, and GPL is a kiss of death for many uses. Edit: And yes, there is LGPL, but its language is completely unsuitable for anything non-binary, like scripting languages, and hence could use some updating. If I import a node.js module into my namespace, am I merely linking to it or not? What if I start monkeypatching it?
- gillianseed 14y ago
  >and GPL is a kiss of death for many uses. GPL is a 'kiss of death' for proprietary uses. So yes, needless to say, if your code is aimed at being used by both open source AND proprietary then GPL is NOT the choice. However if you are not interested in supporting proprietary programs with code and want access to any enhancements made to the code you've released then GPL is a perfectly valid choice.
  - unconed 14y ago
    The argument ignores that GPL is a giant stink eye for many people. It deters people from wanting to make enhancements in the first place... there's no point in having rights to enhancements that are not being made. It doesn't matter if technically they could still use it without violating the license, they simply do not want to. GPL works great until someone builds a superior non-GPL-licensed alternative. Then it becomes irrelevant.
    - gillianseed 14y ago
      'And permissive licences is a giant stink eye for many people. It deters people wanting to make enhancements in the first place. There's no point with enhancements being made when they are kept under proprietary lock and key.' There, your arguments hold no water. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' licence, there is only the needs of the code author/owner. And if someone builds a 'superior' alternative then it doesn't much matter what licence it uses, the point is it being 'superior' code which in turn is what would make something 'irrelevant'.

Nursie 14y ago

GPL (same as above) FAIL.

skore 14y ago

> GPL guys feel ignore[d], BSD guys feel elated. Well that's quite a big "speak for yourself" if I ever saw one. If you're only in it for being recognized, ANY project you embark upon will be a huge disappointment, at least for quite a long while. On the contrary, I think most FOSS projects solve a need, particularly (and yes, sometimes only) for the lead developer. If it solves the needs of others, they will jump in. The license doesn't really enter into that part of the equation. It's only about whether or not you want to make a call on what that community around your work looks like and evolves. You're very much forcing the argument by making it all about the attention of "large proprietary software companies". But there are... other entities besides large proprietary software companies and I rather enjoy seeing where those people are going.

NateDad 14y ago
I didn't mean they care about recognition... I meant, no community forms around their product, because a huge portion of the developers that would like to use it, can't. I never said "large" companies. Small companies can't use GPL in their software either, if they want to sell their software. For-profit companies aren't evil, in fact many of them do a lot of good things, including contributing back to open source projects with time paid for by their closed source products. I think the mindset of "all for-profit companies are evil" is a very 2003 way of thinking.
- NateDad 14y ago
  (note... I did say large.. my bad... still valid that small companies can't use GPL either)
- skore 14y ago
  There are a lot of for-profit companies that use GPL. I have one myself (albeit a very, very small one). As for community - I think community is often more corresponding to usefulness of code, not license of code. That's why there is often a huge "community" around very useful proprietary code. To me, it's about choosing which kind of community you want and I want the kind that the GPL enables and protects.

gnosis 14y ago

"GPL is a hindrance to your code, not a help... unless you're lucky enough to have your code become popular with a large open source community." On the contrary. GPL helps those people that I want using my code to do so. Namely, those people who would contribute code back under the GPL. The GPL encourages them to do so, while BSD hurts this cause. So it's BSD that is a hinderance to my code, not GPL. "GPL prevents any proprietary software maker from using your software." Good. They can go fuck themselves. Proprietary software makes can pay programmers to write software for them. I'm not going to help them for nothing if they're not going to contribute any changes they make back. "Software companies need to make money for a living, and most of them want to do it selling their software, not hoping someone will pay them to support their software." They're welcome to try to make that money without my giving my code away to them for free. "In practice there's no difference between BSD and GPL in the worst case, and in the best case, BSD is better." You're dreaming. GPL has proven its value time and again. The only reason to use BSD is if you want to help someone make a profit for free, without them contributing anything back, and let your own code be assimilated and made closed-source. I choose not to do that, thank you very much. "Some awesome devs make Cool GPL Software™. Hundreds of large proprietary software companies like the look of the software, but it's GPL, so they can't use it." Once again, fuck large proprietary companies. I have zero sympathy for them, and aren't going to be slaving away for them for free.

natefinch 14y ago
I never said large. Small proprietary companies also can't use GPL. I guess, fuck them, too? Fuck anyone who wants to actually make money writing software for a living? How very 1998 of you. Doh, I did say large. Well, crap. How about "thousands of small proprietary companies..." ?
- gillianseed 14y ago
  Still doesn't mean I owe them anything, if I want to give away code for proprietary companies to use then that's genererous and perfectly fine. Likewise there's not something wrong with with only writing open source for open source, where you will be priviledged to have any enhancements made to your code available to you. And if 'you actually want to make money writing software' then you really can't demand that there should be code lying around for you to use and sell. Complaints about people not wanting to write code that proprietary companies can use for free and sell simply appals me. As if the 'companies' should have some god-given right to use open source and make money?