6 ms·

That analogy is a bit flawed. People who can't legally combine the GPL with other projects had to make the conscious decision of choosing an incompatible licens

That analogy is a bit flawed. People who can't legally combine the GPL with other projects had to make the conscious decision of choosing an incompatible license. If you acknowledge the idea that there are no non-universal recipients or donors in software, then it makes more sense to use copyleft.

eksith 13y ago
I'm not too sure what you're trying to say here. "If you acknowledge the idea that there are no non-universal recipients or donors in software..." ? My perspective is that of a donor; not a receiver. I want to ensure that what I create has as few hindrances as possible in terms of adoptability and the last thing I need is the license (which has no bearing whatsoever on the actual functionality of the work to begin with) to get in the way. And I've seen it get in the way of plenty of other past projects.
- spacelizard 13y ago
  If you release your software under copyleft, and someone else can't use that in another project because they chose an incompatible license, the "hindrance" is entirely their fault, not yours. Now if someone takes your permissively licensed code and makes it proprietary, THAT is a real hindrance to users of that software, and while it may not be your fault directly, you had the power to stop it because you are the copyright holder and could have copylefted it. So permissively licensed software actually has more potential than copyrighted software in allowing a license to "get in the way."
  - eksith 13y ago
    I want to give people choice to contribute back. 'Do as you please and leave the copyright' vs. 'Do as you please, leave copyright, distribution requires sources etc...' Which is more permissive? "Permissive" in your sense of the word is entirely a misnomer since it's effectively a permission whitelist not a blacklist. This is getting to be entirely repetitious since I've had this discussion many times before. I'll let an old post explain why I can never in good conscience put GPL on anything I do : http://eksith.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/gpl-vs-bsd http://eksith.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/gpl-vs-bsd
    - Nursie 13y ago
      One persons restriction on what developers can do is another persons "Never able to access the source to devices I own" I'm sure you have your reasons for disliking the GPL. Many of us love it for those very same reasons, and for the freedom it grants to everyone, not just the immediate recipient.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        The GPL and proprietary licenses are both about controlling what other people can do, just in opposite ways. They each address the fear that other people won't play nice. The BSD license sits in the middle and is about trusting people to make good decisions. The trust extends so far that BSD code can be converted to the GPL or a proprietary license.
        mindslight 13y ago
        Do embedded device vendors deserve our trust to make good decisions ? They don't display outright malice, but they are institutionally set up to abandon software after a few years, as software maintenance is only ever a cost center. Unfortunately management doesn't care about this aspect of their business, and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to a world of user-upgradeable software.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        All I can say is that for me the good outweighs the bad: as an end user, I'm much happier with Darwin than with Linux.
        mindslight 13y ago
        Are you actually comparing Darwin vs Linux, or OSX vs GNU? Proprietary software has many advantages over Free - heavier corporate investment creates more consistent and polished results. But that doesn't imply that it's better for all purposes, or that a new project is better off choosing a license that makes easy to incorporate into proprietary products.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    > Now if someone takes your permissively licensed code and makes it proprietary, THAT is a real hindrance to users of that software I look at it as decent screening process. If the only reason the person / company is returning the changes is the license, then it is very probable that I don't really want those changes or to work with them. Its also a really poor business decision on their part (yet another good reason to not deal with them). They will spend time on their fork and have no influence over the direction of the code.
    - tjaerv 13y ago
      Exactly. Economic incentives trump legal mandates. Landley speaks to this in his Toybox presentation, noting that the forced source code contributions resulting from the Busybox lawsuits were absolutely worthless.
    - spacelizard 13y ago
      If a proprietary company decides to modify and distribute GPLed software, then I would say they have been persuaded into a good business decision, because their users will have freedom with that software. You don't need to work with anyone that you don't want to. The GPL doesn't have a requirement that you need to submit pull requests. All it requires is that if you distribute binaries, you must also distribute source code to anyone who asks, so that the users can have freedom. And if the users have freedom, then anyone can have as much influence on the direction of the code as they want.
  - synchronise 13y ago
    By that logic, the FSF created a pseudo-proprietary environment where code from several notable projects including the Linux Kernel, have no way of using code or even migrating to the GPLv3. I don't blame anyone except the FSF for this massive oversight in license compatibility. They also haven't solved that LibreDWG issue yet, even though they hold all the cards and it would be of literally no effort on their part to fix this mess.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      What oversight? They recommend licensing as GPLv2 "or later", but the Linux project didn't accept that, since Linus doesn't like the GPLv3. How is it the FSF fault?
      - synchronise 13y ago
        There was no GPLv3 when the Linux kernel was first developed.
        icebraining 13y ago
        No, but the GPL already included a "or any later version" clause if the copyright holder wanted to make use of it. Were they supposed to force people to accept it to use the GPL? If not, how is it their fault?
        synchronise 13y ago
        They easily could have to stop license proliferation and incompatibilities.
        icebraining 13y ago
        How?
        synchronise 13y ago

eksith 13y ago

I'm not too sure what you're trying to say here. "If you acknowledge the idea that there are no non-universal recipients or donors in software..." ? My perspective is that of a donor; not a receiver. I want to ensure that what I create has as few hindrances as possible in terms of adoptability and the last thing I need is the license (which has no bearing whatsoever on the actual functionality of the work to begin with) to get in the way. And I've seen it get in the way of plenty of other past projects.

spacelizard 13y ago
If you release your software under copyleft, and someone else can't use that in another project because they chose an incompatible license, the "hindrance" is entirely their fault, not yours. Now if someone takes your permissively licensed code and makes it proprietary, THAT is a real hindrance to users of that software, and while it may not be your fault directly, you had the power to stop it because you are the copyright holder and could have copylefted it. So permissively licensed software actually has more potential than copyrighted software in allowing a license to "get in the way."
- eksith 13y ago
  I want to give people choice to contribute back. 'Do as you please and leave the copyright' vs. 'Do as you please, leave copyright, distribution requires sources etc...' Which is more permissive? "Permissive" in your sense of the word is entirely a misnomer since it's effectively a permission whitelist not a blacklist. This is getting to be entirely repetitious since I've had this discussion many times before. I'll let an old post explain why I can never in good conscience put GPL on anything I do : http://eksith.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/gpl-vs-bsd http://eksith.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/gpl-vs-bsd
  - Nursie 13y ago
    One persons restriction on what developers can do is another persons "Never able to access the source to devices I own" I'm sure you have your reasons for disliking the GPL. Many of us love it for those very same reasons, and for the freedom it grants to everyone, not just the immediate recipient.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      The GPL and proprietary licenses are both about controlling what other people can do, just in opposite ways. They each address the fear that other people won't play nice. The BSD license sits in the middle and is about trusting people to make good decisions. The trust extends so far that BSD code can be converted to the GPL or a proprietary license.
      - mindslight 13y ago
        Do embedded device vendors deserve our trust to make good decisions ? They don't display outright malice, but they are institutionally set up to abandon software after a few years, as software maintenance is only ever a cost center. Unfortunately management doesn't care about this aspect of their business, and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to a world of user-upgradeable software.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        All I can say is that for me the good outweighs the bad: as an end user, I'm much happier with Darwin than with Linux.
        mindslight 13y ago
        Are you actually comparing Darwin vs Linux, or OSX vs GNU? Proprietary software has many advantages over Free - heavier corporate investment creates more consistent and polished results. But that doesn't imply that it's better for all purposes, or that a new project is better off choosing a license that makes easy to incorporate into proprietary products.
- protomyth 13y ago
  > Now if someone takes your permissively licensed code and makes it proprietary, THAT is a real hindrance to users of that software I look at it as decent screening process. If the only reason the person / company is returning the changes is the license, then it is very probable that I don't really want those changes or to work with them. Its also a really poor business decision on their part (yet another good reason to not deal with them). They will spend time on their fork and have no influence over the direction of the code.
  - tjaerv 13y ago
    Exactly. Economic incentives trump legal mandates. Landley speaks to this in his Toybox presentation, noting that the forced source code contributions resulting from the Busybox lawsuits were absolutely worthless.
  - spacelizard 13y ago
    If a proprietary company decides to modify and distribute GPLed software, then I would say they have been persuaded into a good business decision, because their users will have freedom with that software. You don't need to work with anyone that you don't want to. The GPL doesn't have a requirement that you need to submit pull requests. All it requires is that if you distribute binaries, you must also distribute source code to anyone who asks, so that the users can have freedom. And if the users have freedom, then anyone can have as much influence on the direction of the code as they want.
- synchronise 13y ago
  By that logic, the FSF created a pseudo-proprietary environment where code from several notable projects including the Linux Kernel, have no way of using code or even migrating to the GPLv3. I don't blame anyone except the FSF for this massive oversight in license compatibility. They also haven't solved that LibreDWG issue yet, even though they hold all the cards and it would be of literally no effort on their part to fix this mess.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    What oversight? They recommend licensing as GPLv2 "or later", but the Linux project didn't accept that, since Linus doesn't like the GPLv3. How is it the FSF fault?
    - synchronise 13y ago
      There was no GPLv3 when the Linux kernel was first developed.
      - icebraining 13y ago
        No, but the GPL already included a "or any later version" clause if the copyright holder wanted to make use of it. Were they supposed to force people to accept it to use the GPL? If not, how is it their fault?
        synchronise 13y ago
        They easily could have to stop license proliferation and incompatibilities.
        icebraining 13y ago
        How?
        synchronise 13y ago