8 ms·

Why the use of GPL is declining

33 points by macco 14y ago

Sami_Lehtinen 14y ago
I decided to use MIT license, because it's permissive and simple enough.
- jakerocheleau 14y ago
  Most of the work I release is licensed using MIT because it allows other developers to build with my code without limitations or requiring full attribution. I like the idea of anybody having direct access to change or update what I've written to make it better, faster, cleaner. Until I can find a more "free" license I will stick to MIT as well.
  - dazzawazza 14y ago
    It's important to remember that as well as giving others 'freedom' MIT also protects you from being held responsible for your l33tstrcmp causing a plane to crash in to the ground.
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    More free than MIT? Public domain?
    - kelnos 14y ago
      In some countries, public domain doesn't actually exist, so software put into the public domain actually has uncertain legal standing there. Better to retain copyright and put a very permissive license on it to avoid ambiguity.
    - jakerocheleau 14y ago
      This is funny because I asked this exact same thing in an earlier thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5546931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5546931 Most people told me it's just not possible from a legal stance, unfortunately. Because honestly I would release most of my works as public domain for people to use as they see fit. Maybe copyright laws will change in the future, but MIT is a close 2nd. Plus it's easy to read and known well among developers(as others have mentioned).
      - StavrosK 14y ago
        Hum, that's very interesting. I wonder what the most legally permissive license would be, and whether someone has written it.
  - wereHamster 14y ago
    http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
    - kelnos 14y ago
      Please don't. Licenses like MIT, BSD 2-clause, etc. are all well-understood by people in the legal profession at this point, while these really add nothing to the table. There's no need for the proliferation of open source licenses.
    - touristtam 14y ago
      I always like the later one, as a punk-ish way to express a free and permissive license. Glad someone mentioned it. :)
  - profquail 14y ago
    I like the Apache 2.0 license -- while it's much lengthier than the MIT or BSD licenses, it provides similar licensing terms with the crucial addition of patent protection. If someone submits code to an Apache 2.0-licensed project which is covered by a patent they own, they're required to provide an _explicit_ license for those patents when submitting the code.
stcredzero 14y ago
GPL restricts my freedom in an effort to protect it. BSD and MIT and other licenses like them carry no such restriction.
- GhotiFish 14y ago
  wow. I honestly thought that when I heard that argument on 4chan, that the people on the other end making that argument were aware how crazy their line of thinking was. This was the last place I expected to see that sentiment reiterated. You live in a society of laws, that guarantees your freedom. BSD and MIT do not guarantee your freedom. They are free in a purely anarchist sense. This is not a good thing™.
  - olgeni 14y ago
    > They are free in a purely anarchist sense. This is not a good thing™. ?
    - mtgx 14y ago
      Anarchy = "freedom" to kill someone, etc Democracy = freedom to do what you want, as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights/freedoms. So I think he wants to say GPL is more like democracy from this point of view, while MIT is more like anarchy, where everyone can do whatever they want with it (both good and bad).
      - dragonwriter 14y ago
        > So I think he wants to say GPL is more like democracy from this point of view The GPL certainly is more authoritarian and less like anarchy, but I don't recall public open-to-all-citizens elections for either FSF leadership or the specific content of the GPL, so its not very much like direct or representative democracy. More like ideological autocracy, which is great if you agree 100% with both the ideology and strategy of the revolutionary vanguard, not so much otherwise.
  - wslh 14y ago
tzs 14y ago
When I find BSD or MIT licensed code, I feel like a kid whose grandmother has given him money for his birthday, so he can spend it on what he wants. When I find GPL licensed code, I feel like a kid whose grandmother has given him underpants for his birthday.
- eksith 14y ago
  This is exactly my feeling! A lot of my "playground stuff" is in the Public Domain for this very reason; I hate giving underpants as gifts cause that is such a bummer (and you don't even find out a lot of times until you download the bloody thing), I can't even explain just how bad it feels without coffee first. The non-playground stuff is MIT (something I did for work) or ISC, which is mostly harmless to anyone who wants to actually use it. People who use GPL are too hung up on controlling the distribution mode of derivatives; I understand the reason GPL exists, but I think it's a faulty premise to begin with. Kinda like Peace Through Superior Fire Power. Also, the preamble to the GPL reads a lot like religious/political rhetoric.
  - stelonix 14y ago
    Would you care to elaborate why you think GPL's premise is false? And I believe you're right, the GPL is (and was designed to be) a political statement.
    - eksith 14y ago
      I started writing a reply and then I just remembered I wrote about how I felt about it a little while back. http://eksith.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/gpl-vs-bsd/ http://eksith.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/gpl-vs-bsd/ On three separate occasions so far, I've come across a situation where someone has rejected a GPL piece (with basically nothing wrong technically; which is a damn shame) only to go with BSD the first time, ISC the second and, to my surprise, a closed source solution the third. Now 3 may not seem like a statistically significant number, but from the type of projects these were, my feeling is that the GPL seems to actively repel adoption to the point where even a closed source binary is more preferable. The premise is to ensure quality code gets returned to the community, and I understand that, but quality code isn't what we usually get back. When the issue is forced, by and large, I feel people reject participation entirely, return the bare minimum necessary to comply (let's say an API which is GPL licensed while the rest of the library/application is under a different one) or, of course, non-compliance. It's hard not to be a cynic these days, but I do think most people are basically good. And if you give good people the choice of doing good, they will not only do it, but also do it more earnestly. This earnestness in turn will produce, I believe, code of the best quality.
JohnTHaller 14y ago
MIT and BSD are great for takers who like to take from open source and give nothing back since they are free to take the code, modify it, and release it as commercial closed source software (which is usually what happens). There are rare exceptions to this where people enhance and contribute back. Companies love MIT/BSD since they don't have to give back to their competitors. The GPL is great as it ensures that everyone who uses my code has to give their contributions back so I get to use and improve upon it, too. Individuals usually like this. Companies often do not. The way I look at it, I'm doing work for free. The GPL ensures I get a return on that investment in the form of additional code and work that I can use in my own projects and that everyone can benefit from. MIT/BSD lets someone else profit from my work without giving anything back to anyone.
- Sanddancer 14y ago
  So why is it that Apple, Google, etc are contributing a lot of code back to llvm/clang when they don't have to? Why is it that no one's created a long-lasting fork of xfree86/xorg, even though those are also under permissive licenses? Why is it that there are many commercial consulting companies for PostgreSQL that donate everything they write back to the community? Conversely, why is it that MySQL under Oracle, while GPLed, is criticized for not being open and contributing meaningful information about the project?
  - GhotiFish 14y ago
    because working publicly on software is the right way to make software. Try explaining that to a middle aged balding manager who just wants to get through the next quarter without getting canned. You can make an easier case to use permissive software, and once you're using it you can make an easier case to submit public work. To me, that says we need more pressure, not less.
    - Sanddancer 14y ago
      I'd argue that history shows otherwise. GPLv3, with its increased restrictions, proved a bridge too far for a lot of projects, to the detriment of everyone. Apple, the FreeBSD project, the OpenBSD project, etc have all put in efforts to divest themselves of GPL encumbered code because it increased the costs of using the software. Because the wording of things like the patent clauses were so questionable, it became much cheaper in terms of lawyer time, etc, to either use older software that was still under GPLv2, or to use software using less-encumbered licenses, like BSD and MIT. That balding middle manager needs to make sure that that license is acceptable by his boss, by the people in the legal department, etc. For example, an innocuous throwaway line of a program that can only be used for "good, not evil," ends up needing to get the lawyers involved for clarification and special waivers ( http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions ). If the internal costs of using an encumbered program are too great, then chances are, it just won't get used; the company will either write their own version, or use a commmercial variant.
CJefferson 14y ago
For me, the thing which killed the GPL was the GPL v3. Not the contraversy which surrounded it, but the fact that GPL v2 is incompatable with GPL v3, and the suggested fix was "make your licence GPL v2+ and trust us for all time to never make a licence you disagree with". I am aware of several projects which will probably never get off GPL v2, and now can't merge in GPL v3-only code (as while the FSF seem to encourage people to make the code forward-licence compatible, they don't seem to encourage backward-licence compatability). For me (and several minor projects I work on), that was the point at which we just threw our hands in the air -- we didn't have the time or motivation to pick our way out of this situation.
- GhotiFish 14y ago
  Now that is a valid criticism. The FSF drives a hard line sometimes, frankly I think more ire should be directed at TiVo than FSF. The uppity jerks.
  - dragonwriter 14y ago
    > The FSF drives a hard line sometimes, frankly I think more ire should be directed at TiVo than FSF. In the first place, IMO, "Tivoization" is an overblown problem ; in the second place, I think the anti-tivoization (and, insofar as they limit the use cases of Free Software, anti-software freedom) provisions of the GPLv3 have done more to prevent GPL usage than to prevent tivoization. I think it dramatically highlighted the problem with the GPL approach: that, now that the value of open source software is demonstrated, while some people will take and not give back with the opportunity, lots will, and you end up getting more growth of usable F/OSS software if you don't burden the people downstream, and if you try to use compulsion, you get locked in a cycle of increasing the complications and restrictions for downstream users in a way that just gets more people to throw up their hands and not bother with your code at all. While the bad actors find new and creative ways of complying with your most recent license while subverting its intent, leading to yet more complicated licenses, with more burdens, etc.
    - johnbm 14y ago
rlx0x 14y ago
I don't expect anyone here arguing for the GPL (in an predominately neoconservative community like hacker news). So anyways, I make the conscious decision to use GPL, because it protects my work from exploitation by others (corporations are people too my friend, right?)
- sramsay 14y ago
  I am absolutely amazed by the reactions in this thread. I don't know if HN readers are bunch of neo-cons (I'm certainly not), but I wonder if people feel threatened by the GPL, because they are current or aspirational entrepreneurs who think the GPL gets in the way of their making a lot of money.
  - profquail 14y ago
    I don't think HN readers in general are neoconservative, mostly quite the opposite. I do, however, think many HN readers have a strong libertarian streak. In this case, when I say "libertarian", I mean true libertarianism (not the "tea party"-ish faction of the Republican party). In this respect, I imagine most HN'ers prefer the BSD/MIT/Apache 2.0 licenses not because they want to make money off of free software in the future, but because they value personal freedom and extend those beliefs to their own software development. In other words, they want to use free/open software to avoid being trampled on by some company, but they're also not OK with being pushed around by any other "free" software developers. Read a bit of this article and you'll see what I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
    - sramsay 14y ago
      "when I say 'libertarian,' I mean true libertarianism . . ." Talking about "true libertarianism" is no different than talking about "true conservatism," "true feminism," "true Marxism" or anything else -- these terms are all historically fluid, and accusing one another of not being "true" is one of the main activities among communities who unite under the supposed unity of an ideological stance. Richard Stallman, it should be noted, has also been called a libertarian (http://actonline.org/act-blog/archives/1147 http://actonline.org/act-blog/archives/1147). But yes, you're probably right in the main about their not liking to be pushed around by others. Still, that describes a vast cross-section of human society.
blackhole 14y ago
You know, if I make something open-source, it's because I want people to use it. I refuse to use copyleft licenses because all they manage to do in practice is ensure no commercial venture will ever use your code. If I didn't want a commercial entity using my code, I wouldn't make it open-source. The GPL was created to help free software, which is more about freedom of speech, not open-source. It should be used only when your code is intended as a contribution to the free software movement, not when it is intended to simply be open-source.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  Indeed. Part of this for me is vanity in a sense, I'd love it if Microsoft used my code. (Although they never will, but hey, I can dream.) But also, I like permissive licenses because it means I worry less and anyone who uses my code can worry less about it.
- qb45 14y ago
  > You know, if I make something open-source, it's because I want people to use it. I refuse to use copyleft licenses because all they manage to do in practice is ensure no commercial venture will ever use your code. Because no commercial venture uses Linux or BusyBox. > The GPL was created to help free software, which is more about freedom of speech, not open-source. FSF is actually more about making sure that as much software as possible is "open source" than about freedom of speech. Maybe you confused them with EFF.
  - GhotiFish 14y ago
    ... I've got to be honest. It wasn't until you pointed it out that I noticed the difference. I thought they were two heads of the same hydra.
- bitdiddle 14y ago
  right, like for example Git. No one has built any commercial ventures around Git that I know of.
  - 14y ago
doe88 14y ago
Nowadays in the wide I mainly see two use cases for GPL code, either the person want to limit its use to encourage purchase of a commercial license or to prevent its use by a conccurrent, or the second use I see is people wanting to make a political statement of some sort. I respect both use cases but ultimately I consider GPL code more like teasing to me, because as great as this code is, I know there is some limitations with this code and I won't be able to use it as freely as I'd want now or in the future. So now, to spare me the mental pain of knowing there is a great GPL project I know I can't use, the first thing I do when I discover a new project is to check its license and if it's GPL I stop reading, plain and simple. I highly respect people releasing GPL code, I highly respect their motivations and somehow their political engagement but I treat it like if this code didn't exist or is a binary. And for my own code I use the MIT License when I choose to share it with the world.
snarfy 14y ago
Sometimes I don't care about rights. I care about results. Considering market size, # of active developers, and general amount of funding (corporate or otherwise), which is the best/most advanced, a major Linux distro or FreeBSD? The answer to this question will tell you which license has better results.
- profquail 14y ago
  > The answer to this question will tell you which license has better results. Correlation does not imply causation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...
AdrianRossouw 14y ago
i use MIT for almost all my code these days, because I tend to work in javascript, and it just feels like MIT/BSD is the natural license of the web. To even try and restrict what others can do with code that I send to their browser to have it work in the first place, feels dumb.
sumanthvepa 14y ago
Although there may be altruistic or political reasons for preferring MIT/BSD/Apache style licenses over the GPL, I believe that the choice of license must be closely related to the type of project you are creating. If the project is a library or a piece of code that is intended for use by other developers, you will greatly increase the potential audience for your project by using a license like the MIT/BSD or Apache license. If however, your project is a complete application (say a code editor, browser, or a game), whose primary audience consists of non-developers, then a GPL can be a good license, as it maximizes reach to your intended audience, while still allowing developers to contribute the project, and most importantly preventing free-riding by potential competitors.
stcredzero 14y ago
Another way to think of this: It's alright if you've brought the toys, and you feel the rules to play should be a certain way. It's also alright if you insist on those rules and decide to take your toys home if you don't get to play by those rules. This is pretty much what the GPL is. When it gets obnoxious, is when people start saying that you're "evil" for not using your favorite rules. That's possible, particularly when the complexity of the real world brings pragmatism into play, but it is a bit of an extraordinary claim, especially when put in absolutist terms. That would be like saying that you're "evil" for playing any kind of ball game without a helmet. This could be a highly beneficial and pragmatic thing in one context (professional baseball) but just silly and obnoxious in another. (Sandlot game with a wiffle ball.) Stallman and the FSF make the claim that there is a new set of human rights concerning software that we weren't aware of before. That is the crux of the matter. Is it enough to let everything play out "in the marketplace" and let people vote with their dollars and their feet, or is there a new set of rights that should be enshrined in law? I do think Stallman has a point, and that much good has come of copyleft and activism by the FSF, but does this give someone a right to declare what is absolutely good and evil? I don't think so.

33 points by macco 14y ago

Sami_Lehtinen 14y ago

I decided to use MIT license, because it's permissive and simple enough.

jakerocheleau 14y ago
Most of the work I release is licensed using MIT because it allows other developers to build with my code without limitations or requiring full attribution. I like the idea of anybody having direct access to change or update what I've written to make it better, faster, cleaner. Until I can find a more "free" license I will stick to MIT as well.
- dazzawazza 14y ago
  It's important to remember that as well as giving others 'freedom' MIT also protects you from being held responsible for your l33tstrcmp causing a plane to crash in to the ground.
- StavrosK 14y ago
  More free than MIT? Public domain?
  - kelnos 14y ago
    In some countries, public domain doesn't actually exist, so software put into the public domain actually has uncertain legal standing there. Better to retain copyright and put a very permissive license on it to avoid ambiguity.
  - jakerocheleau 14y ago
    This is funny because I asked this exact same thing in an earlier thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5546931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5546931 Most people told me it's just not possible from a legal stance, unfortunately. Because honestly I would release most of my works as public domain for people to use as they see fit. Maybe copyright laws will change in the future, but MIT is a close 2nd. Plus it's easy to read and known well among developers(as others have mentioned).
    - StavrosK 14y ago
      Hum, that's very interesting. I wonder what the most legally permissive license would be, and whether someone has written it.
- wereHamster 14y ago
  http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
  - kelnos 14y ago
    Please don't. Licenses like MIT, BSD 2-clause, etc. are all well-understood by people in the legal profession at this point, while these really add nothing to the table. There's no need for the proliferation of open source licenses.
  - touristtam 14y ago
    I always like the later one, as a punk-ish way to express a free and permissive license. Glad someone mentioned it. :)
- profquail 14y ago
  I like the Apache 2.0 license -- while it's much lengthier than the MIT or BSD licenses, it provides similar licensing terms with the crucial addition of patent protection. If someone submits code to an Apache 2.0-licensed project which is covered by a patent they own, they're required to provide an _explicit_ license for those patents when submitting the code.

stcredzero 14y ago

GPL restricts my freedom in an effort to protect it. BSD and MIT and other licenses like them carry no such restriction.

GhotiFish 14y ago
wow. I honestly thought that when I heard that argument on 4chan, that the people on the other end making that argument were aware how crazy their line of thinking was. This was the last place I expected to see that sentiment reiterated. You live in a society of laws, that guarantees your freedom. BSD and MIT do not guarantee your freedom. They are free in a purely anarchist sense. This is not a good thing™.
- olgeni 14y ago
  > They are free in a purely anarchist sense. This is not a good thing™. ?
  - mtgx 14y ago
    Anarchy = "freedom" to kill someone, etc Democracy = freedom to do what you want, as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights/freedoms. So I think he wants to say GPL is more like democracy from this point of view, while MIT is more like anarchy, where everyone can do whatever they want with it (both good and bad).
    - dragonwriter 14y ago
      > So I think he wants to say GPL is more like democracy from this point of view The GPL certainly is more authoritarian and less like anarchy, but I don't recall public open-to-all-citizens elections for either FSF leadership or the specific content of the GPL, so its not very much like direct or representative democracy. More like ideological autocracy, which is great if you agree 100% with both the ideology and strategy of the revolutionary vanguard, not so much otherwise.
- wslh 14y ago

tzs 14y ago

When I find BSD or MIT licensed code, I feel like a kid whose grandmother has given him money for his birthday, so he can spend it on what he wants. When I find GPL licensed code, I feel like a kid whose grandmother has given him underpants for his birthday.

eksith 14y ago
This is exactly my feeling! A lot of my "playground stuff" is in the Public Domain for this very reason; I hate giving underpants as gifts cause that is such a bummer (and you don't even find out a lot of times until you download the bloody thing), I can't even explain just how bad it feels without coffee first. The non-playground stuff is MIT (something I did for work) or ISC, which is mostly harmless to anyone who wants to actually use it. People who use GPL are too hung up on controlling the distribution mode of derivatives; I understand the reason GPL exists, but I think it's a faulty premise to begin with. Kinda like Peace Through Superior Fire Power. Also, the preamble to the GPL reads a lot like religious/political rhetoric.
- stelonix 14y ago
  Would you care to elaborate why you think GPL's premise is false? And I believe you're right, the GPL is (and was designed to be) a political statement.
  - eksith 14y ago
    I started writing a reply and then I just remembered I wrote about how I felt about it a little while back. http://eksith.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/gpl-vs-bsd/ http://eksith.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/gpl-vs-bsd/ On three separate occasions so far, I've come across a situation where someone has rejected a GPL piece (with basically nothing wrong technically; which is a damn shame) only to go with BSD the first time, ISC the second and, to my surprise, a closed source solution the third. Now 3 may not seem like a statistically significant number, but from the type of projects these were, my feeling is that the GPL seems to actively repel adoption to the point where even a closed source binary is more preferable. The premise is to ensure quality code gets returned to the community, and I understand that, but quality code isn't what we usually get back. When the issue is forced, by and large, I feel people reject participation entirely, return the bare minimum necessary to comply (let's say an API which is GPL licensed while the rest of the library/application is under a different one) or, of course, non-compliance. It's hard not to be a cynic these days, but I do think most people are basically good. And if you give good people the choice of doing good, they will not only do it, but also do it more earnestly. This earnestness in turn will produce, I believe, code of the best quality.

JohnTHaller 14y ago

MIT and BSD are great for takers who like to take from open source and give nothing back since they are free to take the code, modify it, and release it as commercial closed source software (which is usually what happens). There are rare exceptions to this where people enhance and contribute back. Companies love MIT/BSD since they don't have to give back to their competitors. The GPL is great as it ensures that everyone who uses my code has to give their contributions back so I get to use and improve upon it, too. Individuals usually like this. Companies often do not. The way I look at it, I'm doing work for free. The GPL ensures I get a return on that investment in the form of additional code and work that I can use in my own projects and that everyone can benefit from. MIT/BSD lets someone else profit from my work without giving anything back to anyone.

Sanddancer 14y ago
So why is it that Apple, Google, etc are contributing a lot of code back to llvm/clang when they don't have to? Why is it that no one's created a long-lasting fork of xfree86/xorg, even though those are also under permissive licenses? Why is it that there are many commercial consulting companies for PostgreSQL that donate everything they write back to the community? Conversely, why is it that MySQL under Oracle, while GPLed, is criticized for not being open and contributing meaningful information about the project?
- GhotiFish 14y ago
  because working publicly on software is the right way to make software. Try explaining that to a middle aged balding manager who just wants to get through the next quarter without getting canned. You can make an easier case to use permissive software, and once you're using it you can make an easier case to submit public work. To me, that says we need more pressure, not less.
  - Sanddancer 14y ago
    I'd argue that history shows otherwise. GPLv3, with its increased restrictions, proved a bridge too far for a lot of projects, to the detriment of everyone. Apple, the FreeBSD project, the OpenBSD project, etc have all put in efforts to divest themselves of GPL encumbered code because it increased the costs of using the software. Because the wording of things like the patent clauses were so questionable, it became much cheaper in terms of lawyer time, etc, to either use older software that was still under GPLv2, or to use software using less-encumbered licenses, like BSD and MIT. That balding middle manager needs to make sure that that license is acceptable by his boss, by the people in the legal department, etc. For example, an innocuous throwaway line of a program that can only be used for "good, not evil," ends up needing to get the lawyers involved for clarification and special waivers ( http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions ). If the internal costs of using an encumbered program are too great, then chances are, it just won't get used; the company will either write their own version, or use a commmercial variant.

CJefferson 14y ago

For me, the thing which killed the GPL was the GPL v3. Not the contraversy which surrounded it, but the fact that GPL v2 is incompatable with GPL v3, and the suggested fix was "make your licence GPL v2+ and trust us for all time to never make a licence you disagree with". I am aware of several projects which will probably never get off GPL v2, and now can't merge in GPL v3-only code (as while the FSF seem to encourage people to make the code forward-licence compatible, they don't seem to encourage backward-licence compatability). For me (and several minor projects I work on), that was the point at which we just threw our hands in the air -- we didn't have the time or motivation to pick our way out of this situation.

GhotiFish 14y ago
Now that is a valid criticism. The FSF drives a hard line sometimes, frankly I think more ire should be directed at TiVo than FSF. The uppity jerks.
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  > The FSF drives a hard line sometimes, frankly I think more ire should be directed at TiVo than FSF. In the first place, IMO, "Tivoization" is an overblown problem ; in the second place, I think the anti-tivoization (and, insofar as they limit the use cases of Free Software, anti-software freedom) provisions of the GPLv3 have done more to prevent GPL usage than to prevent tivoization. I think it dramatically highlighted the problem with the GPL approach: that, now that the value of open source software is demonstrated, while some people will take and not give back with the opportunity, lots will, and you end up getting more growth of usable F/OSS software if you don't burden the people downstream, and if you try to use compulsion, you get locked in a cycle of increasing the complications and restrictions for downstream users in a way that just gets more people to throw up their hands and not bother with your code at all. While the bad actors find new and creative ways of complying with your most recent license while subverting its intent, leading to yet more complicated licenses, with more burdens, etc.
  - johnbm 14y ago

rlx0x 14y ago

I don't expect anyone here arguing for the GPL (in an predominately neoconservative community like hacker news). So anyways, I make the conscious decision to use GPL, because it protects my work from exploitation by others (corporations are people too my friend, right?)

sramsay 14y ago
I am absolutely amazed by the reactions in this thread. I don't know if HN readers are bunch of neo-cons (I'm certainly not), but I wonder if people feel threatened by the GPL, because they are current or aspirational entrepreneurs who think the GPL gets in the way of their making a lot of money.
- profquail 14y ago
  I don't think HN readers in general are neoconservative, mostly quite the opposite. I do, however, think many HN readers have a strong libertarian streak. In this case, when I say "libertarian", I mean true libertarianism (not the "tea party"-ish faction of the Republican party). In this respect, I imagine most HN'ers prefer the BSD/MIT/Apache 2.0 licenses not because they want to make money off of free software in the future, but because they value personal freedom and extend those beliefs to their own software development. In other words, they want to use free/open software to avoid being trampled on by some company, but they're also not OK with being pushed around by any other "free" software developers. Read a bit of this article and you'll see what I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
  - sramsay 14y ago
    "when I say 'libertarian,' I mean true libertarianism . . ." Talking about "true libertarianism" is no different than talking about "true conservatism," "true feminism," "true Marxism" or anything else -- these terms are all historically fluid, and accusing one another of not being "true" is one of the main activities among communities who unite under the supposed unity of an ideological stance. Richard Stallman, it should be noted, has also been called a libertarian (http://actonline.org/act-blog/archives/1147 http://actonline.org/act-blog/archives/1147). But yes, you're probably right in the main about their not liking to be pushed around by others. Still, that describes a vast cross-section of human society.

blackhole 14y ago

You know, if I make something open-source, it's because I want people to use it. I refuse to use copyleft licenses because all they manage to do in practice is ensure no commercial venture will ever use your code. If I didn't want a commercial entity using my code, I wouldn't make it open-source. The GPL was created to help free software, which is more about freedom of speech, not open-source. It should be used only when your code is intended as a contribution to the free software movement, not when it is intended to simply be open-source.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
Indeed. Part of this for me is vanity in a sense, I'd love it if Microsoft used my code. (Although they never will, but hey, I can dream.) But also, I like permissive licenses because it means I worry less and anyone who uses my code can worry less about it.
qb45 14y ago
> You know, if I make something open-source, it's because I want people to use it. I refuse to use copyleft licenses because all they manage to do in practice is ensure no commercial venture will ever use your code. Because no commercial venture uses Linux or BusyBox. > The GPL was created to help free software, which is more about freedom of speech, not open-source. FSF is actually more about making sure that as much software as possible is "open source" than about freedom of speech. Maybe you confused them with EFF.
- GhotiFish 14y ago
  ... I've got to be honest. It wasn't until you pointed it out that I noticed the difference. I thought they were two heads of the same hydra.
bitdiddle 14y ago
right, like for example Git. No one has built any commercial ventures around Git that I know of.
- 14y ago

doe88 14y ago

Nowadays in the wide I mainly see two use cases for GPL code, either the person want to limit its use to encourage purchase of a commercial license or to prevent its use by a conccurrent, or the second use I see is people wanting to make a political statement of some sort. I respect both use cases but ultimately I consider GPL code more like teasing to me, because as great as this code is, I know there is some limitations with this code and I won't be able to use it as freely as I'd want now or in the future. So now, to spare me the mental pain of knowing there is a great GPL project I know I can't use, the first thing I do when I discover a new project is to check its license and if it's GPL I stop reading, plain and simple. I highly respect people releasing GPL code, I highly respect their motivations and somehow their political engagement but I treat it like if this code didn't exist or is a binary. And for my own code I use the MIT License when I choose to share it with the world.

snarfy 14y ago

Sometimes I don't care about rights. I care about results. Considering market size, # of active developers, and general amount of funding (corporate or otherwise), which is the best/most advanced, a major Linux distro or FreeBSD? The answer to this question will tell you which license has better results.

profquail 14y ago
> The answer to this question will tell you which license has better results. Correlation does not imply causation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...

AdrianRossouw 14y ago

i use MIT for almost all my code these days, because I tend to work in javascript, and it just feels like MIT/BSD is the natural license of the web. To even try and restrict what others can do with code that I send to their browser to have it work in the first place, feels dumb.

sumanthvepa 14y ago

Although there may be altruistic or political reasons for preferring MIT/BSD/Apache style licenses over the GPL, I believe that the choice of license must be closely related to the type of project you are creating. If the project is a library or a piece of code that is intended for use by other developers, you will greatly increase the potential audience for your project by using a license like the MIT/BSD or Apache license. If however, your project is a complete application (say a code editor, browser, or a game), whose primary audience consists of non-developers, then a GPL can be a good license, as it maximizes reach to your intended audience, while still allowing developers to contribute the project, and most importantly preventing free-riding by potential competitors.

stcredzero 14y ago

Another way to think of this: It's alright if you've brought the toys, and you feel the rules to play should be a certain way. It's also alright if you insist on those rules and decide to take your toys home if you don't get to play by those rules. This is pretty much what the GPL is. When it gets obnoxious, is when people start saying that you're "evil" for not using your favorite rules. That's possible, particularly when the complexity of the real world brings pragmatism into play, but it is a bit of an extraordinary claim, especially when put in absolutist terms. That would be like saying that you're "evil" for playing any kind of ball game without a helmet. This could be a highly beneficial and pragmatic thing in one context (professional baseball) but just silly and obnoxious in another. (Sandlot game with a wiffle ball.) Stallman and the FSF make the claim that there is a new set of human rights concerning software that we weren't aware of before. That is the crux of the matter. Is it enough to let everything play out "in the marketplace" and let people vote with their dollars and their feet, or is there a new set of rights that should be enshrined in law? I do think Stallman has a point, and that much good has come of copyleft and activism by the FSF, but does this give someone a right to declare what is absolutely good and evil? I don't think so.