8 ms·

Politics really does destroy all that is holy. in this case free software. should I be able to extend free software for profit or not? I would say yes... but th

Politics really does destroy all that is holy. in this case free software. should I be able to extend free software for profit or not? I would say yes... but there are some cases in which I would say no. for a compiler I would say no one should be able to make money off an extension. it just doesn't make since.

icarus127 13y ago
I was thinking this as well. I see the GPL, and Copy Left licensing in general, as a sort of regulatory force in free software. If you want to participate the GPL will put constraints on you to play nice with others in the FOSS space. Given what happened in the financial markets as they were deregulated I am extremely suspicious of the notion that removing the constraints of Copy Left will actually be positive in the long run. I have no doubt that it will help companies like Apple but I don't see the benefit for the wider community of developers.
- jcase 13y ago
  I'm not sure this is true (anymore?). There are many open source projects who are thriving under non copyleft licenses. If someone wanted to be a dick about it they could release modified GPL code as one big diff and publish it on some obscure webpage only their customers have access to. Instead we see more and more companies and individuals becoming friendly open source citizens. Perhaps some because the GPL mandates it but I would like to think mainly because they feel it's right thing to do—copyleft or not.
  - icarus127 13y ago
    I too share your general optimism about the current state of open source. I really hope that you are correct in your conclusion that the GPL mandate is unnecessary because, as we see here, many projects are trying to get away from it. However, I feel we have a number of historical examples of what happens when constraints are lifted in a space that has a number of very powerful players. None of them look like anything I want the Open Source movement to look like.
    - jcase 13y ago
      Well, whatever the license, here is to a bright future! That a rising tide may lift all boats.
- voltagex_ 13y ago
  The GPL is supposed to put constraints on you, but I'm still waiting for a source code release from Billion for their router firmware (Busybox) and Philips have removed access to their GPL source trees.
- gaadd33 13y ago
  Why do you feel that? There's no benefit to a company in maintaining an ever evolving and complex fork of a project as compared to contributing back the non business essential parts so that their fork can be smaller.
sophacles 13y ago
What I don't understand is that the same people who get up in arms about government, and bitch and moan about "rights to the fruit of my labor", don't like the notion that someone else can claim those very rights by putting a gnu license on something. At that point they get all whiney about unfairness to their little business and how they could just make money if the could appropriate someone else's labor against their terms (aka the thing they hate about taxes). It's an odd cognitive dissonance.
- pnathan 13y ago
  Excuse me. I am an existence proof of the falsity of your statement. I don't like government much, and I do think I have a right to the fruit of my labor. And I'm more than happy to use GPL software when it is appropriate, and I'm quite happy to license my own labor out as AGPL3.
  - sophacles 13y ago
    Actually, I didn't say "all". Had I said "all", your existence merely forces a modification, and at best your existence doesn't even show incorrectness had I said "vast majority". As it stands my statement could be interpreted as "all", that part was unclear. I merely meant "a lot". Your statement is a shining example of the fallacy fallacy though... just because one interpretation of what I said on a detail of it is incorrect, that in no way invalidates my statement nor the existence of vocal people like those I describe.
  - quinnchr 13y ago
    Ah so if you think you have the right to the fruit of your labor, I assume that means you're a communist? That seems pretty in step with the GPL.
    - meepmorp 13y ago
      > Ah so if you think you have the right to the fruit of your labor, I assume that means you're a communist? More likely, a libertarian in the contemprary American sense of the term, though the labor theory of property is at least Lockean in vintage.
jcase 13y ago
Not sure if you mean for profit and proprietary or just making money in general. For some reason though a lot of people think you can't sell GPL'd software which you absolutely can.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Why would I pay for a copy of some GPL software when I could just wait for someone else to buy it and then get it from them for free?
  - nisa 13y ago
    Derivates of GPL software are also GPL licenced. If you use a lot of GPL code in your product you have to provide the source. The possibility of a dual licence gives the creator a compensation because he waives the rights the GPL gives him for you. Also: Support contracts. A lot of poeple live in the support ecosystem and adapt GPL/BSD software for costumers.
    - GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
      > If you use a lot of GPL code in your product you have to provide the source. Fixed: If you use ANY GPL code in your product you have to provide the source.(There are of course exeptions eg LGPL) Also it isn't simply derivative work that that can be forced to re-license under the GPLv3. If FreeBSD had elected to adopt a GPLv3 compiler and distribute the source(as they do with the compiler) then the FreeBSD kernel itself would become subject to it. In fact, it isn't just gcc which has this restriction. Any GPL v3 code isn't allowed in base. Further reading: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/press/2007Aug-newsletter.shtml http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/press/2007Aug-newsletter.sh...
      - TylerE 13y ago
        If you're going to be a pedant, get it right. You have to license any code that links with GPL code under the GPL. This does not prevent you from dual-licensing your own portion of the code base, or shipping non-GPL, non-linked code as part of the same product (Although in the case of things like DLL plugins it gets a bit hazy)
rickjames28 13y ago
The only thing you have a say in is code that you have copyright on.

icarus127 13y ago

I was thinking this as well. I see the GPL, and Copy Left licensing in general, as a sort of regulatory force in free software. If you want to participate the GPL will put constraints on you to play nice with others in the FOSS space. Given what happened in the financial markets as they were deregulated I am extremely suspicious of the notion that removing the constraints of Copy Left will actually be positive in the long run. I have no doubt that it will help companies like Apple but I don't see the benefit for the wider community of developers.

jcase 13y ago
I'm not sure this is true (anymore?). There are many open source projects who are thriving under non copyleft licenses. If someone wanted to be a dick about it they could release modified GPL code as one big diff and publish it on some obscure webpage only their customers have access to. Instead we see more and more companies and individuals becoming friendly open source citizens. Perhaps some because the GPL mandates it but I would like to think mainly because they feel it's right thing to do—copyleft or not.
- icarus127 13y ago
  I too share your general optimism about the current state of open source. I really hope that you are correct in your conclusion that the GPL mandate is unnecessary because, as we see here, many projects are trying to get away from it. However, I feel we have a number of historical examples of what happens when constraints are lifted in a space that has a number of very powerful players. None of them look like anything I want the Open Source movement to look like.
  - jcase 13y ago
    Well, whatever the license, here is to a bright future! That a rising tide may lift all boats.
voltagex_ 13y ago
The GPL is supposed to put constraints on you, but I'm still waiting for a source code release from Billion for their router firmware (Busybox) and Philips have removed access to their GPL source trees.
gaadd33 13y ago
Why do you feel that? There's no benefit to a company in maintaining an ever evolving and complex fork of a project as compared to contributing back the non business essential parts so that their fork can be smaller.

sophacles 13y ago

What I don't understand is that the same people who get up in arms about government, and bitch and moan about "rights to the fruit of my labor", don't like the notion that someone else can claim those very rights by putting a gnu license on something. At that point they get all whiney about unfairness to their little business and how they could just make money if the could appropriate someone else's labor against their terms (aka the thing they hate about taxes). It's an odd cognitive dissonance.

pnathan 13y ago
Excuse me. I am an existence proof of the falsity of your statement. I don't like government much, and I do think I have a right to the fruit of my labor. And I'm more than happy to use GPL software when it is appropriate, and I'm quite happy to license my own labor out as AGPL3.
- sophacles 13y ago
  Actually, I didn't say "all". Had I said "all", your existence merely forces a modification, and at best your existence doesn't even show incorrectness had I said "vast majority". As it stands my statement could be interpreted as "all", that part was unclear. I merely meant "a lot". Your statement is a shining example of the fallacy fallacy though... just because one interpretation of what I said on a detail of it is incorrect, that in no way invalidates my statement nor the existence of vocal people like those I describe.
- quinnchr 13y ago
  Ah so if you think you have the right to the fruit of your labor, I assume that means you're a communist? That seems pretty in step with the GPL.
  - meepmorp 13y ago
    > Ah so if you think you have the right to the fruit of your labor, I assume that means you're a communist? More likely, a libertarian in the contemprary American sense of the term, though the labor theory of property is at least Lockean in vintage.

jcase 13y ago

Not sure if you mean for profit and proprietary or just making money in general. For some reason though a lot of people think you can't sell GPL'd software which you absolutely can.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Why would I pay for a copy of some GPL software when I could just wait for someone else to buy it and then get it from them for free?
- nisa 13y ago
  Derivates of GPL software are also GPL licenced. If you use a lot of GPL code in your product you have to provide the source. The possibility of a dual licence gives the creator a compensation because he waives the rights the GPL gives him for you. Also: Support contracts. A lot of poeple live in the support ecosystem and adapt GPL/BSD software for costumers.
  - GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
    > If you use a lot of GPL code in your product you have to provide the source. Fixed: If you use ANY GPL code in your product you have to provide the source.(There are of course exeptions eg LGPL) Also it isn't simply derivative work that that can be forced to re-license under the GPLv3. If FreeBSD had elected to adopt a GPLv3 compiler and distribute the source(as they do with the compiler) then the FreeBSD kernel itself would become subject to it. In fact, it isn't just gcc which has this restriction. Any GPL v3 code isn't allowed in base. Further reading: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/press/2007Aug-newsletter.shtml http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/press/2007Aug-newsletter.sh...
    - TylerE 13y ago
      If you're going to be a pedant, get it right. You have to license any code that links with GPL code under the GPL. This does not prevent you from dual-licensing your own portion of the code base, or shipping non-GPL, non-linked code as part of the same product (Although in the case of things like DLL plugins it gets a bit hazy)

rickjames28 13y ago

The only thing you have a say in is code that you have copyright on.