3 ms·

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 f

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.
  - GhotiFish 14y ago
    That's well argued. Truth be told IANAL, I know the GPL has being patched to avoid people shirking it's intention. If it became a bit of a monster because of that, I would not be aware.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > Try explaining that to a middle aged balding manager Argument through unattractive stereotype? > To me, that says we need more pressure, not less. Because more pressure makes us more free, I guess.
wslh 14y ago
In the case of a big company they receive contributions, good press, and more important they can retain the power because they are funding developers themselves. If you start your own one person project and Google thinks it is good for their business they can take over it. Yes, the project will retain a specific license but you lost in some way since you can't control the direction of the project anymore.
- Sanddancer 14y ago
  That happens with GPL products too. Look at CUPS for example. One guy operation, Apple liked it, bought it out. Or a lot of the stuff Cygnus did after Redhat bought them out; the insight frontend for gdb has all but stagnated since Redhat took over. GPL isn't a magic bullet that stops companies from taking over projects.
qb45 14y ago
There is no business in commercial forks of Xorg because there are no commercial Unices anymore. And their demise coincides with growth of GNU/Linux (as in "GNU userland running on top of Linux-the-kernel"). As for LLVM, the only companies selling commercial compilers specialize in HPC, embedded or other narrow markets and they have no reason to fork LLVM because in their niches they are better. Apple and Google contribute to LLVM because they use it and it benetifts them. And BTW, LLVM wasn't the project which killed commercial general purpose C compilers. The importance of GPL lies in its ability to "open-source" whole software domains and put them in the hands of their users, at which point the choice of license becomes less important.
- fafner 14y ago
  Exactly! GPL levelled the field. BSD has been around for much longer than Linux and is very widely used. All commercial Unices and even Windows contain code from BSD but the *BSDs are still lacking contributions and funding. People always complain about RMS' decision to make GCC a complex interconnected bundle. Sure right now it's a stupid decision and the GCC folks have to work on breaking it up. But the decision has to bee seen with the historic context. But there are simply many people here who think of themselves as hotshot entrepreneurs and take plenty of code without contributing back. I know I know ... they released their implementation of the x hundred nodejs logging library under MIT license. What a huge contribution to society! ...
  - LukeShu 14y ago
    Wait, when dig GCC come in to this? I'm not sure what GCC has to do with anything else you said.

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.
- GhotiFish 14y ago
  That's well argued. Truth be told IANAL, I know the GPL has being patched to avoid people shirking it's intention. If it became a bit of a monster because of that, I would not be aware.
stcredzero 14y ago
> Try explaining that to a middle aged balding manager Argument through unattractive stereotype? > To me, that says we need more pressure, not less. Because more pressure makes us more free, I guess.

wslh 14y ago

In the case of a big company they receive contributions, good press, and more important they can retain the power because they are funding developers themselves. If you start your own one person project and Google thinks it is good for their business they can take over it. Yes, the project will retain a specific license but you lost in some way since you can't control the direction of the project anymore.

Sanddancer 14y ago
That happens with GPL products too. Look at CUPS for example. One guy operation, Apple liked it, bought it out. Or a lot of the stuff Cygnus did after Redhat bought them out; the insight frontend for gdb has all but stagnated since Redhat took over. GPL isn't a magic bullet that stops companies from taking over projects.

qb45 14y ago

There is no business in commercial forks of Xorg because there are no commercial Unices anymore. And their demise coincides with growth of GNU/Linux (as in "GNU userland running on top of Linux-the-kernel"). As for LLVM, the only companies selling commercial compilers specialize in HPC, embedded or other narrow markets and they have no reason to fork LLVM because in their niches they are better. Apple and Google contribute to LLVM because they use it and it benetifts them. And BTW, LLVM wasn't the project which killed commercial general purpose C compilers. The importance of GPL lies in its ability to "open-source" whole software domains and put them in the hands of their users, at which point the choice of license becomes less important.

fafner 14y ago
Exactly! GPL levelled the field. BSD has been around for much longer than Linux and is very widely used. All commercial Unices and even Windows contain code from BSD but the *BSDs are still lacking contributions and funding. People always complain about RMS' decision to make GCC a complex interconnected bundle. Sure right now it's a stupid decision and the GCC folks have to work on breaking it up. But the decision has to bee seen with the historic context. But there are simply many people here who think of themselves as hotshot entrepreneurs and take plenty of code without contributing back. I know I know ... they released their implementation of the x hundred nodejs logging library under MIT license. What a huge contribution to society! ...
- LukeShu 14y ago
  Wait, when dig GCC come in to this? I'm not sure what GCC has to do with anything else you said.