4 ms·

For my own code, I prefer the GPL. I write free software, and share it with other people who write free software. I don't share it with people who write closed

For my own code, I prefer the GPL. I write free software, and share it with other people who write free software. I don't share it with people who write closed source software. They are free to write their own versions of my software. After all, that's exactly what they expect me to do, write my own versions of their software. I'm a big fan of Linux (as are many others on here). I don't think it would exist today if not for the GPL license.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
> I don't share it with people who write closed source software. Of course you do. GCC was shared to great effect with Apple. Furthermore, when somebody writes MIT/BSD code (for example Apple), they share it with you because you can put it under the GPL. But when you write GPL code, you don't share it with them because they can't relicense it as MIT/BSD code.
- mike-cardwell 13y ago
  "Of course you do. GCC was shared to great effect with Apple." - Obviously when I said "sharing" I was talking about using my code in their products. But you knew this. "Furthermore, when somebody writes MIT/BSD code (for example Apple), they share it with you because you can put it under the GPL. But when you write GPL code, you don't share it with them because they can't relicense it as MIT/BSD code." That's fine. They're happy for me to not share any changes I make with them. They explicitly told me this when they released it under MIT/BSD. That's their choice, and they are free to make it. I wouldn't be happy with that arrangement if it were my code, so I choose a different license. As is my choice. If I spend time working on their code, my changes are going to be released under the GPL, because I don't want my code to be used in closed source software. Where's the problem? So yeah, it sucks that they can't re-use my code. But that's their choice. And I'm assuming they're happy with their choice because of the license they chose. if they weren't happy with this arrangement, they'd have chosen the GPL. [edit] Also, even if I do this, I am still sharing my code with them, as long as they are happy to keep it out of closed source products. If they think it's more important that people can write closed source software with their code, than integrate my code into theirs, that's fine. Again, their choice. Everyone is free to do what they want. Even people who write closed source software. They are free to open up their code to me if they want to use mine.
  - pbsdp 13y ago
    > I wouldn't be happy with that arrangement if it were my code, so I choose a different license. If you're approaching this from an "ethics of sharing" stance, then what what you're actually restricting is somebody else's use of their own code. Your code never disappears/changes/gets relicensed, it's their code that you're staking a claim to. Now, if you're approaching this from a stance of withholding certain valuable rights to your code, such as the ability to be the only person that licenses closed source usage, then the argument is a bit more logical. > They are free to open up their code to me if they want to use mine. I do. Under the MIT license.
    - mike-cardwell 13y ago
      "then what what you're actually restricting is somebody else's use of their own code. Your code never disappears/changes/gets relicensed, it's their code that you're staking a claim to." This is some very bizarre reasoning. They still have their code. They are still free to do whatever they want with it. If they want my contributions in their product, they made a serious error in their license choice. Maybe they should have used the GPL. But do you know what? They can use my code. They are completely free to use my code. As long as they only use it in GPL software. "I do. Under the MIT license." By saying this, you are saying to me that I am free to re-release your code under the GPL and add my own contributions. If you are not happy with this arrangement, you have made an error in your license choice. I have not made any errors in my license choice. It behaves exactly in the manner I want it to.
      - pbsdp 13y ago
        > By saying this, you are saying to me that I am free to re-release your code under the GPL and add my own contributions. If you are not happy with this arrangement, you have made an error in your license choice. No, I'll remain content with my license agreement, I'll just think that you're a dick. That's OK, though -- some people behaving like dicks is simply the cost of collaborating openly.
        13y ago
jlgaddis 13y ago
I'm also a big fan of Linux (I've been a user for ~18 years now) and of free software and the GPL (click on my username). I don't write (or publicly release) much code but I truly want anyone to be able to do whatever they wish with it (whether the result is open or closed). Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't allow that.
- mike-cardwell 13y ago
  That's cool. I'm not saying that is a bad choice. I'm just saying that for me, if you want to use my code in your project, I expect you to reciprocate. I think a World full of closed source software would be dramatically worse than a World full of open source software. This is why I love the viral nature of the GPL.
- devcpp 13y ago
  You know what's more important to me than to do whatever I wish to with your code? Doing whatever I wish to do the code of every single person using your code. Of course, the chain can't end with me and I'll have to publish my own changes. But it's worth it, I'm not a proprietary software asshole, and in the end I'll benefit from other people's changes and insert it back in my own code and improve my sales that way. You, me, the other programmers, Stallman, the users, everybody wins! That's how I see it anyway. In the end, you have your own priorities and if you like to give without always receiving, that's understandable too. Ah, tradeoffs...
steveklabnik 13y ago
I would just like to say that I am increasingly in agreement with you. I'm starting to think that many of my new projects will be AGPL. Congrats on being calm and explaining your position well downthread, even though there's a lot of GPL hatred here. > After all, that's exactly what they expect me to do, write my own versions of their software. This part is particularly well explained, thank you.

foobarbazqux 13y ago

> I don't share it with people who write closed source software. Of course you do. GCC was shared to great effect with Apple. Furthermore, when somebody writes MIT/BSD code (for example Apple), they share it with you because you can put it under the GPL. But when you write GPL code, you don't share it with them because they can't relicense it as MIT/BSD code.

mike-cardwell 13y ago
"Of course you do. GCC was shared to great effect with Apple." - Obviously when I said "sharing" I was talking about using my code in their products. But you knew this. "Furthermore, when somebody writes MIT/BSD code (for example Apple), they share it with you because you can put it under the GPL. But when you write GPL code, you don't share it with them because they can't relicense it as MIT/BSD code." That's fine. They're happy for me to not share any changes I make with them. They explicitly told me this when they released it under MIT/BSD. That's their choice, and they are free to make it. I wouldn't be happy with that arrangement if it were my code, so I choose a different license. As is my choice. If I spend time working on their code, my changes are going to be released under the GPL, because I don't want my code to be used in closed source software. Where's the problem? So yeah, it sucks that they can't re-use my code. But that's their choice. And I'm assuming they're happy with their choice because of the license they chose. if they weren't happy with this arrangement, they'd have chosen the GPL. [edit] Also, even if I do this, I am still sharing my code with them, as long as they are happy to keep it out of closed source products. If they think it's more important that people can write closed source software with their code, than integrate my code into theirs, that's fine. Again, their choice. Everyone is free to do what they want. Even people who write closed source software. They are free to open up their code to me if they want to use mine.
- pbsdp 13y ago
  > I wouldn't be happy with that arrangement if it were my code, so I choose a different license. If you're approaching this from an "ethics of sharing" stance, then what what you're actually restricting is somebody else's use of their own code. Your code never disappears/changes/gets relicensed, it's their code that you're staking a claim to. Now, if you're approaching this from a stance of withholding certain valuable rights to your code, such as the ability to be the only person that licenses closed source usage, then the argument is a bit more logical. > They are free to open up their code to me if they want to use mine. I do. Under the MIT license.
  - mike-cardwell 13y ago
    "then what what you're actually restricting is somebody else's use of their own code. Your code never disappears/changes/gets relicensed, it's their code that you're staking a claim to." This is some very bizarre reasoning. They still have their code. They are still free to do whatever they want with it. If they want my contributions in their product, they made a serious error in their license choice. Maybe they should have used the GPL. But do you know what? They can use my code. They are completely free to use my code. As long as they only use it in GPL software. "I do. Under the MIT license." By saying this, you are saying to me that I am free to re-release your code under the GPL and add my own contributions. If you are not happy with this arrangement, you have made an error in your license choice. I have not made any errors in my license choice. It behaves exactly in the manner I want it to.
    - pbsdp 13y ago
      > By saying this, you are saying to me that I am free to re-release your code under the GPL and add my own contributions. If you are not happy with this arrangement, you have made an error in your license choice. No, I'll remain content with my license agreement, I'll just think that you're a dick. That's OK, though -- some people behaving like dicks is simply the cost of collaborating openly.
      - 13y ago

jlgaddis 13y ago

I'm also a big fan of Linux (I've been a user for ~18 years now) and of free software and the GPL (click on my username). I don't write (or publicly release) much code but I truly want anyone to be able to do whatever they wish with it (whether the result is open or closed). Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't allow that.

mike-cardwell 13y ago
That's cool. I'm not saying that is a bad choice. I'm just saying that for me, if you want to use my code in your project, I expect you to reciprocate. I think a World full of closed source software would be dramatically worse than a World full of open source software. This is why I love the viral nature of the GPL.
devcpp 13y ago
You know what's more important to me than to do whatever I wish to with your code? Doing whatever I wish to do the code of every single person using your code. Of course, the chain can't end with me and I'll have to publish my own changes. But it's worth it, I'm not a proprietary software asshole, and in the end I'll benefit from other people's changes and insert it back in my own code and improve my sales that way. You, me, the other programmers, Stallman, the users, everybody wins! That's how I see it anyway. In the end, you have your own priorities and if you like to give without always receiving, that's understandable too. Ah, tradeoffs...

steveklabnik 13y ago

I would just like to say that I am increasingly in agreement with you. I'm starting to think that many of my new projects will be AGPL. Congrats on being calm and explaining your position well downthread, even though there's a lot of GPL hatred here. > After all, that's exactly what they expect me to do, write my own versions of their software. This part is particularly well explained, thank you.