4 ms·

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 sourc

by 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.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        Darwin is an OS (the kernel is called XNU), so I was comparing it to Linux-based OS's. Darwin is the basis of both OS X and iOS. I agree that whether or not proprietary or copyleft is better or worse for a given situation is hard to say. A BSD license simply leaves the door open.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    GPL isn't about control in the way proprietary licenses are, since it grants rights beyond what you would get with no license at all, while proprietary licenses take away rights you would normally have under copyright.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      Sure, the GPL is more permissive than simple copyright, but it's much more restrictive than BSD-style licenses. The GPL is controlling (compared to a BSD license) in that it seeks to ensure freedom, a proprietary license is controlling (compared to a BSD license) in that it seeks to ensure profit.
    - Someone 13y ago
      Both the GPL and BSD licenses give developers that want to build on software others wrote rights that they do not have by default. However, compared to BSD licenses, the GPL gives fewer rights to those 3rd party developers. It also gives users of the software those developers write rights. BSD licenses, on the other hand, leave it to those developers to decide what they want to give their users. So yes, the GPL isn't about control in the way proprietary licenses are, but it is about control.
      - spacelizard 13y ago
        The GPL is not about control, it's about freedom. It gives you all the rights necessary to preserve the four freedoms. The only thing the GPL limits is power; it does not give you the power to take those freedoms away from anyone else.
        icebraining 13y ago
        How is limiting power not exerting control?
        spacelizard 13y ago
        Because the limitations on power apply to everyone. If neither you or I have power, then neither of us have control over the other. We both stand on the same ground.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by eksith 13y ago

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.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        Darwin is an OS (the kernel is called XNU), so I was comparing it to Linux-based OS's. Darwin is the basis of both OS X and iOS. I agree that whether or not proprietary or copyleft is better or worse for a given situation is hard to say. A BSD license simply leaves the door open.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  GPL isn't about control in the way proprietary licenses are, since it grants rights beyond what you would get with no license at all, while proprietary licenses take away rights you would normally have under copyright.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Sure, the GPL is more permissive than simple copyright, but it's much more restrictive than BSD-style licenses. The GPL is controlling (compared to a BSD license) in that it seeks to ensure freedom, a proprietary license is controlling (compared to a BSD license) in that it seeks to ensure profit.
  - Someone 13y ago
    Both the GPL and BSD licenses give developers that want to build on software others wrote rights that they do not have by default. However, compared to BSD licenses, the GPL gives fewer rights to those 3rd party developers. It also gives users of the software those developers write rights. BSD licenses, on the other hand, leave it to those developers to decide what they want to give their users. So yes, the GPL isn't about control in the way proprietary licenses are, but it is about control.
    - spacelizard 13y ago
      The GPL is not about control, it's about freedom. It gives you all the rights necessary to preserve the four freedoms. The only thing the GPL limits is power; it does not give you the power to take those freedoms away from anyone else.
      - icebraining 13y ago
        How is limiting power not exerting control?
        spacelizard 13y ago
        Because the limitations on power apply to everyone. If neither you or I have power, then neither of us have control over the other. We both stand on the same ground.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]