3 ms·

> MIT/BSD give people in those companies the freedom, the respect, to make their own choices, good or bad. That freedom is more free, in spirit, than any of the

> MIT/BSD give people in those companies the freedom, the respect, to make their own choices, good or bad. That freedom is more free, in spirit, than any of the more restrictive licenses. Exactly. The MIT/BSD/Apache 2.0 licenses are about trust and cooperation, not force. > There is nobody being bent to your will with GPL; someone who wants to use the code either uses it quietly against the terms of the license, or simply doesn't use it. I've always found it strange that GPL proponents think the GPL "forces" people to do certain things. They don't discuss the option of simply not using the software. Likewise, no one seems to mention the fact that the GPL, as a license, does not (and cannot) "force" anyone to adhere to it's terms; only a court can enforce the terms, and then only if you bring a suit against a violator.

calinet6 14y ago
> The MIT/BSD/Apache 2.0 licenses are about trust and cooperation, not force. This is the best description of both the purpose and the result of the license I've yet seen! To me, it really aligns well with humanity. It matches the way people naturally work with each other. If you have a friend, for example, who always demands fairness with every situation, it can be a true trust mindfuck. For example, people who exactly split the bill at a restaurant down to the penny and the tax percentage based on what you ate. Or, people who will spot you $10 for a movie, but will force you to write an IOU first. I don't enjoy dealing with these sorts of people, since they make the assumption that I am untrustworthy. This is a type of negative reinforcement for your humanity. They make you feel bad simply for doing normal things. This is the GPL in a nutshell. However, some people are the opposite: generous, giving, and the picture of unselfishness themselves. For example, picking up the entire check at a restaurant, or just splitting it evenly even though they had a smaller dish. Or spotting you $10 and saying "don't sweat it, I know it'll come back around." They make the assumption that you are trustworthy, and understand that you're human and fallible, but have good intentions. They make you feel good about yourself and about them, and you want to be friends with them; it's a positive relationship. This is what MIT/BSD/Apache feels like. The second person might get burned sometimes by their unselfish generosity, but in the end, they make a lot more friends, and those friends like them and want to give back. Overwhelmingly, they receive more than they give because of the sheer multitude of positive relationships they build. In the software world, I can absolutely feel this effect. When I see a project that's been GPL'd, I actually consciously and willingly resent them for it. I perceive they're being selfish with their work, they don't trust me to contribute back naturally, and thus they're making a bunch of pre-judgements and demands on me before they hand over the code. It's bullshit. I might use it if I have to, and I'll contribute back because I have to, but you know what? I won't enjoy it. I love open-source, but I can't shake that feeling of ill will. MIT/BSD/Apache licensed software is the model of unselfishness. It's software being nice to me. It's software that trusts me and gives me the benefit of a doubt. It's software that I want to contribute back to, and I do, all the time. It's software that I choose to use over any alternative, because it's so much lower maintenance. It's software that's fundamentally cool. And furthermore, it's software that's likely to be higher quality, since it's more likely to be used by more companies with real large-scale projects. It's overwhelmingly better in all respects, and I recognize that in no small way. If you're arguing for the GPL because you don't trust people who use your code to "give back fairly," then you don't get it.
- pooriaazimi 14y ago
  Yes, this kind of behavior that you describe is the reason I personally dislike FSF and Richard Stallman (knowing and acknowledging that they've done more than I can in probably 1000 years, but it doesn't mean they're above criticism). You might recall this recent thread: "GNU sed 4.2.2 released, maintainer resigns" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4956899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4956899 It cites http://lwn.net/Articles/529522/ http://lwn.net/Articles/529522/, which is a living proof of what you're saying. Two main developers of GnuTLS, that had written 10,600 commits out of 11,000 wanted to respectfully part ways with FSF. This is Stallman's reaction: > Nikos, when you volunteered to maintain GNUTLS, the GNU Project entrusted its development to you. Your contributions so far are appreciated. However, the project GNUTLS does not belong to you. > If you want to stop doing this job, you can. If you want to develop a fork of GNUTLS under another name, you can, since it is free software. > But you cannot take GNUTLS out of the GNU Project. You cannot designate a non-GNU program as a replacement for a GNU package. We will continue the development of GNUTLS. This really ought to boosts the morale of GNU contributers to know that even if they had contributed more than 96% of the codebase, they're still not trusted, and are deemed completely replaceable.
_delirium 14y ago
> Exactly. The MIT/BSD/Apache 2.0 licenses are about trust and cooperation, not force. I see it rather the opposite. With the GPL, you make a piece of software free precisely because you trust anyone downstream, in perpetuity, whether you've met them or not, to make modifications (or not) to the code, to forked versions of the code, to branches of forked version of the code, whatever. The assumption is that each person can decide for themselves whether the software should be modified, and if so, in which ways. They can check with you or with someone else if they'd like, but they don't have to check with anyone before making modifications. Companies that insist on MIT/BSD seem to be at least contemplating the idea that they don't trust downstream users, and don't want them to be allowed to further modify the software that was originally open source, at least not without separate permission. Hence they appreciate that the MIT/BSD licenses reserve them the right to use copyright law to keep downstream users from making modifications.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > seem to be at least contemplating the idea that they don't trust downstream users Or, they don't want to be forced to trust everyone, in perpetuity.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

calinet6 14y ago

> The MIT/BSD/Apache 2.0 licenses are about trust and cooperation, not force. This is the best description of both the purpose and the result of the license I've yet seen! To me, it really aligns well with humanity. It matches the way people naturally work with each other. If you have a friend, for example, who always demands fairness with every situation, it can be a true trust mindfuck. For example, people who exactly split the bill at a restaurant down to the penny and the tax percentage based on what you ate. Or, people who will spot you $10 for a movie, but will force you to write an IOU first. I don't enjoy dealing with these sorts of people, since they make the assumption that I am untrustworthy. This is a type of negative reinforcement for your humanity. They make you feel bad simply for doing normal things. This is the GPL in a nutshell. However, some people are the opposite: generous, giving, and the picture of unselfishness themselves. For example, picking up the entire check at a restaurant, or just splitting it evenly even though they had a smaller dish. Or spotting you $10 and saying "don't sweat it, I know it'll come back around." They make the assumption that you are trustworthy, and understand that you're human and fallible, but have good intentions. They make you feel good about yourself and about them, and you want to be friends with them; it's a positive relationship. This is what MIT/BSD/Apache feels like. The second person might get burned sometimes by their unselfish generosity, but in the end, they make a lot more friends, and those friends like them and want to give back. Overwhelmingly, they receive more than they give because of the sheer multitude of positive relationships they build. In the software world, I can absolutely feel this effect. When I see a project that's been GPL'd, I actually consciously and willingly resent them for it. I perceive they're being selfish with their work, they don't trust me to contribute back naturally, and thus they're making a bunch of pre-judgements and demands on me before they hand over the code. It's bullshit. I might use it if I have to, and I'll contribute back because I have to, but you know what? I won't enjoy it. I love open-source, but I can't shake that feeling of ill will. MIT/BSD/Apache licensed software is the model of unselfishness. It's software being nice to me. It's software that trusts me and gives me the benefit of a doubt. It's software that I want to contribute back to, and I do, all the time. It's software that I choose to use over any alternative, because it's so much lower maintenance. It's software that's fundamentally cool. And furthermore, it's software that's likely to be higher quality, since it's more likely to be used by more companies with real large-scale projects. It's overwhelmingly better in all respects, and I recognize that in no small way. If you're arguing for the GPL because you don't trust people who use your code to "give back fairly," then you don't get it.

pooriaazimi 14y ago
Yes, this kind of behavior that you describe is the reason I personally dislike FSF and Richard Stallman (knowing and acknowledging that they've done more than I can in probably 1000 years, but it doesn't mean they're above criticism). You might recall this recent thread: "GNU sed 4.2.2 released, maintainer resigns" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4956899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4956899 It cites http://lwn.net/Articles/529522/ http://lwn.net/Articles/529522/, which is a living proof of what you're saying. Two main developers of GnuTLS, that had written 10,600 commits out of 11,000 wanted to respectfully part ways with FSF. This is Stallman's reaction: > Nikos, when you volunteered to maintain GNUTLS, the GNU Project entrusted its development to you. Your contributions so far are appreciated. However, the project GNUTLS does not belong to you. > If you want to stop doing this job, you can. If you want to develop a fork of GNUTLS under another name, you can, since it is free software. > But you cannot take GNUTLS out of the GNU Project. You cannot designate a non-GNU program as a replacement for a GNU package. We will continue the development of GNUTLS. This really ought to boosts the morale of GNU contributers to know that even if they had contributed more than 96% of the codebase, they're still not trusted, and are deemed completely replaceable.

_delirium 14y ago

> Exactly. The MIT/BSD/Apache 2.0 licenses are about trust and cooperation, not force. I see it rather the opposite. With the GPL, you make a piece of software free precisely because you trust anyone downstream, in perpetuity, whether you've met them or not, to make modifications (or not) to the code, to forked versions of the code, to branches of forked version of the code, whatever. The assumption is that each person can decide for themselves whether the software should be modified, and if so, in which ways. They can check with you or with someone else if they'd like, but they don't have to check with anyone before making modifications. Companies that insist on MIT/BSD seem to be at least contemplating the idea that they don't trust downstream users, and don't want them to be allowed to further modify the software that was originally open source, at least not without separate permission. Hence they appreciate that the MIT/BSD licenses reserve them the right to use copyright law to keep downstream users from making modifications.

stcredzero 14y ago
> seem to be at least contemplating the idea that they don't trust downstream users Or, they don't want to be forced to trust everyone, in perpetuity.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]