5 ms·

I've never seen a good answer to that question. I've emailed the FSF and others and they all tell me to consult a lawyer for how the license works (if they resp

by tedivm 13y ago

I've never seen a good answer to that question. I've emailed the FSF and others and they all tell me to consult a lawyer for how the license works (if they respond at all).

npsimons 13y ago
IANAL, but the spirit seems to be "hey, here's this software, use it how you like, but if you distribute it (including building on it or bundling it in a product) please be kind enough to extend the same freedoms to those you give it to." Using Concord on your site? Offer a link to the source. Modify it to work better with a framework? Offer that modification too. Build an entire product off of it? Well, be prepared to release the source to that product under GPL as well. If you don't like those terms, feel free to start from scratch and not freeload off the original authors who were kind enough to share source with you in the first place. I don't understand how people can pay good money for things like game engines, then turn around and think that OSS doesn't have a price too, or get upset when they are asked to pay it. You just end up paying back to the community instead of into a company's coffers.
- halostatue 13y ago
  That's what the LGPL is for, if you prefer that one (I don't; I prefer the MPL to the LGPL, as it's share-alike restrictions trigger on internal changes). The GPL is less suitable for this because means that all of your code for the page(s) using Concord have to be GPL-compatible. Presumably, this includes Urchin.
- tedivm 13y ago
  Not all OSS has a price. All of the code I've releases is under a free license, not a restrictive one like the GPL. This does mean that companies can use my code in their proprietary projects, but that seems to have gotten me more contributions back instead of less. I also think that a license which is too complicated for anyone to actually understand is simply too flawed to serve it's purpose, which was the original point of my post. This is completely separate from people not giving back to open source.
- officemonkey 13y ago
  If you modify Concord to use on your site (ie: to provide a service) then you do not need to distribute the modification. However, if you incorporate Concord into a product you sell, then you either need to provide the source per the provisions of the GPL, or else negotiate a different license from Winer.
- davewiner 13y ago
  And most important, no gratuitous incompatibility or user lock-in based on formats. Commercial developers esp ones that raise huge money, tend to try to lock users in. If that's their plan, they can write their own outliner, should that situation ever arise.
  - atan 13y ago
    Use of the GPL doesn't merely prevent commercial developers from creating non-compatible formats -- it prevents them from using Concord at all. Let's say I want to build a commercial app that happens to use Concord, and I'm happy to use Concord as is (contributing back any patches or improvements I make) and even make the outlines exportable (assume outlining is just one feature in a much larger app, not the main focus). In that case, I'd have to make much or possibly all of the client-side code GPL compatible, so I can't use Concord, even though I'm not violating your rule about compatibility and am contributing back to the Concord community. GPL seems like overkill given your goal. It will be limited to a niche of either fully open source public applications or completely private/internal applications.
jlgreco 13y ago
It is probably best to just contact the author and ask their opinion about that. For example, proprietary linux kernel drivers seem to be in a gray zone (to put it mildly), but in practice they are tolerated (whether or not the FSF approves of that).
- npsimons 13y ago
  Tolerated? If only barely: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/stable_api_nonsense.html http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/stable_api_nonsense.html also: Basically, I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, it's THEIR problem. I want people to know that in their bones, and I want it shouted out from the rooftops. I want people to wake up in a cold sweat every once in a while if they use binary-only modules. -- Linus Torvalds As a Linux user (and previous developer) I can only commend these positions. I don't care about hardware companies' "intellectual property", all I want is to pay for hardware and have good drivers that don't wreak havoc with my system.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Their existence is absolutely tolerated. They are not liked by any means, nor are they accommodated, but they are allowed to exist (ie, tolerated).
benatkin 13y ago
I've never seen a good answer either, despite searching for one. I've also seen a lot of smart people that are confused by the GPL despite reading a lot about it. I've seen much less of this confusion with other copyleft licenses, like the EPL in the Clojure community. The GPL sucks, full stop.
- gahahaha 13y ago
  The GPL is not about being practical, it's about freedom. That's why it's the only licence I would consider releasing software under.
  - tedivm 13y ago
    It's not about freedom, and I'm a bit sick of that Orwellian categorization (War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength). Unlike other open source licenses which outline your rights, the GPL is a document that is filled with taking rights away. It's also ridiculously complicated, to the point where no one is completely clear on what is or isn't allowed (and the LGPL is even worse). It's not practical and it's not free. That's why I'd never consider releasing software under it.
    - Steltek 13y ago
      I wholeheartedly disagree to your first two statements. I would guess that the GPL just prioritizes freedoms differently than you would prefer. Namely, that access to the source code and the ability to fix bugs out-of-band of the original author is higher than your rights to fully commercialize and restrict access to the code, in the way that the BSD license allows. In a "wishing for infinite wishes" sort of way, the GPL is about removing the freedom to take away any more freedoms. So yes it is constricting in a sense but in a very targeted fashion. I will agree that it is complicated but that's a result of years of companies abusing loopholes and the nature of trying to cover every conceivable scenario. It's an old codebase but still the best we have. Practicality is never the consideration of an idealist and the GPL is definitely the product of an idealist. RMS has often appeared like a crazy old man but as time passes, he seems to be proven right more often than wrong. A consequence of idealism and the march of progress, maybe. You're of course well within your rights to choose a different way but your characterization of the GPL not being about freedom is a bit off the mark.

by tedivm 13y ago

I've never seen a good answer to that question. I've emailed the FSF and others and they all tell me to consult a lawyer for how the license works (if they respond at all).

npsimons 13y ago

IANAL, but the spirit seems to be "hey, here's this software, use it how you like, but if you distribute it (including building on it or bundling it in a product) please be kind enough to extend the same freedoms to those you give it to." Using Concord on your site? Offer a link to the source. Modify it to work better with a framework? Offer that modification too. Build an entire product off of it? Well, be prepared to release the source to that product under GPL as well. If you don't like those terms, feel free to start from scratch and not freeload off the original authors who were kind enough to share source with you in the first place. I don't understand how people can pay good money for things like game engines, then turn around and think that OSS doesn't have a price too, or get upset when they are asked to pay it. You just end up paying back to the community instead of into a company's coffers.

halostatue 13y ago
That's what the LGPL is for, if you prefer that one (I don't; I prefer the MPL to the LGPL, as it's share-alike restrictions trigger on internal changes). The GPL is less suitable for this because means that all of your code for the page(s) using Concord have to be GPL-compatible. Presumably, this includes Urchin.
tedivm 13y ago
Not all OSS has a price. All of the code I've releases is under a free license, not a restrictive one like the GPL. This does mean that companies can use my code in their proprietary projects, but that seems to have gotten me more contributions back instead of less. I also think that a license which is too complicated for anyone to actually understand is simply too flawed to serve it's purpose, which was the original point of my post. This is completely separate from people not giving back to open source.
officemonkey 13y ago
If you modify Concord to use on your site (ie: to provide a service) then you do not need to distribute the modification. However, if you incorporate Concord into a product you sell, then you either need to provide the source per the provisions of the GPL, or else negotiate a different license from Winer.
davewiner 13y ago
And most important, no gratuitous incompatibility or user lock-in based on formats. Commercial developers esp ones that raise huge money, tend to try to lock users in. If that's their plan, they can write their own outliner, should that situation ever arise.
- atan 13y ago
  Use of the GPL doesn't merely prevent commercial developers from creating non-compatible formats -- it prevents them from using Concord at all. Let's say I want to build a commercial app that happens to use Concord, and I'm happy to use Concord as is (contributing back any patches or improvements I make) and even make the outlines exportable (assume outlining is just one feature in a much larger app, not the main focus). In that case, I'd have to make much or possibly all of the client-side code GPL compatible, so I can't use Concord, even though I'm not violating your rule about compatibility and am contributing back to the Concord community. GPL seems like overkill given your goal. It will be limited to a niche of either fully open source public applications or completely private/internal applications.

jlgreco 13y ago

It is probably best to just contact the author and ask their opinion about that. For example, proprietary linux kernel drivers seem to be in a gray zone (to put it mildly), but in practice they are tolerated (whether or not the FSF approves of that).

npsimons 13y ago
Tolerated? If only barely: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/stable_api_nonsense.html http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/stable_api_nonsense.html also: Basically, I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, it's THEIR problem. I want people to know that in their bones, and I want it shouted out from the rooftops. I want people to wake up in a cold sweat every once in a while if they use binary-only modules. -- Linus Torvalds As a Linux user (and previous developer) I can only commend these positions. I don't care about hardware companies' "intellectual property", all I want is to pay for hardware and have good drivers that don't wreak havoc with my system.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Their existence is absolutely tolerated. They are not liked by any means, nor are they accommodated, but they are allowed to exist (ie, tolerated).

benatkin 13y ago

I've never seen a good answer either, despite searching for one. I've also seen a lot of smart people that are confused by the GPL despite reading a lot about it. I've seen much less of this confusion with other copyleft licenses, like the EPL in the Clojure community. The GPL sucks, full stop.

gahahaha 13y ago
The GPL is not about being practical, it's about freedom. That's why it's the only licence I would consider releasing software under.
- tedivm 13y ago
  It's not about freedom, and I'm a bit sick of that Orwellian categorization (War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength). Unlike other open source licenses which outline your rights, the GPL is a document that is filled with taking rights away. It's also ridiculously complicated, to the point where no one is completely clear on what is or isn't allowed (and the LGPL is even worse). It's not practical and it's not free. That's why I'd never consider releasing software under it.
  - Steltek 13y ago
    I wholeheartedly disagree to your first two statements. I would guess that the GPL just prioritizes freedoms differently than you would prefer. Namely, that access to the source code and the ability to fix bugs out-of-band of the original author is higher than your rights to fully commercialize and restrict access to the code, in the way that the BSD license allows. In a "wishing for infinite wishes" sort of way, the GPL is about removing the freedom to take away any more freedoms. So yes it is constricting in a sense but in a very targeted fashion. I will agree that it is complicated but that's a result of years of companies abusing loopholes and the nature of trying to cover every conceivable scenario. It's an old codebase but still the best we have. Practicality is never the consideration of an idealist and the GPL is definitely the product of an idealist. RMS has often appeared like a crazy old man but as time passes, he seems to be proven right more often than wrong. A consequence of idealism and the march of progress, maybe. You're of course well within your rights to choose a different way but your characterization of the GPL not being about freedom is a bit off the mark.