9 ms·

Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL

279 points by twampss 17y ago

jeremymcanally 17y ago
Summary: My code didn't make me rich and famous so I use these licenses so people have no choice. Fair enough, but I think the biggest reason people didn't give him respect and piles of money because of Mongrel or whatever wasn't that they wanted to steal his awesome code and exploit him, but it was because he was a douchebag to them and everyone else. Who wants to deal with someone that toxic? But, no no, it's not his fault. It's those meanies that jacked his code and didn't tell anyone. Jeez.
- hvs 17y ago
  Zed has a caustic personality, but I have to admit that the article was probably the most cogent argument for the GPL over BSD-style licenses that I've ever heard.
  - cdibona 17y ago
    Which part? The only thing I found cogent was his assertion that he, as the author of the software, gets to pick the license, and if you don't like it you can go and write your own code. I think it is actually a mistake to think that a reciprocal license will lead to recognition in the form of accolades or money. Look at the accomplishments of the apache software foundation or the vast bsd communities. From the various companies I've worked with and consulted with over the many years, I'd say that the success or failure of the software released had nothing to do with the open source or free license chosen and everything to do with the utility of the software and personality of the releasing developer.
- piramida 17y ago
  Yeah and I also think he's missing the point that people use mongrel not because it's awesome like Zed, but because they don't have choice. Having deployed several mongrel-based servers I personally think mongrel is a crappy server, and is in fact one of the reasons we switched to python/django.
  - jeremymcanally 17y ago
    Well that's not so much true anymore. I'd actually be interested to see its marketshare after the emergence of Passenger as a viable option, along with other proxying servers like Thin. But yeah for a while, it was Mongrel or (ew) Webrick. How far we've come! :P
    - misuba 17y ago
      Thin is built with the HTTP parsing code from Mongrel - and, curiously, has always admitted it. A large number of the people who shout "Mongrel sucks" have those funny ways of saying "except when it doesn't" under their breath right after.
    - carbon8 17y ago
      I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem like anyone willingly deploys new apps using mongrel anymore. It's all passenger, glassfish, etc these days.
  - lsc 17y ago
    I don't see how that would change anything; better than the alternatives is.
- mtodd 17y ago
  Hmmm, I don't think that's true at all. Zed may have played this card online, but in reality, he's very professional and friendly when it counts. I would've loved the opportunity to work with him, and enjoyed every time I chatted with him (mostly at conferences).
  - jeremymcanally 17y ago
    Yes, in person he's been nothing but courteous. But he has a bit of "The Facebook Dilemma" on his hands in that people who are likely to hire him will Google him or know him from his caustic posts already. So, rather than creating an opening for people to get to know him, he's managed to wall himself off in a nasty little shell. I'm sure his image reboot, what with going into Python, ditching the whole "ZSFA" moniker, and generally being a level headed guy will fare much better for him. He'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar, if you will.
- tamersalama 17y ago
  > he was a douchebag to them and everyone else. Haven't heard but favorable opinions of him. persona != personality
  - tjogin 17y ago
    If you willingly make a douchebag "persona" for yourself, don't complain when people call you a douchebag.
    - nailer 17y ago
      I'd complain about people not understanding that a programmer with an electric guitar that shoots lightning surrounded by strippers might have been ironic.
      - tjogin 17y ago
        Generally speaking, people don't like ironic douchebags any better than they like regular douchebags.
        nailer 17y ago
        Really? Look at Sasha Baron Cohen. As Borat, he's an ironic anti-Semite. Most people have noticed this, and if they find him funny, like him. Those same people would not like regular anti-Semites.
- kngspook 17y ago
  I think he was burned a bit by what happened in the Ruby/Rails/Mongrel/etc. situation, and it's even worse when it affects your livelihood, and he lashed out as a result. Outside of that situation, I've heard nothing of good things about him; and in my (limited, online-only) interactions with him, he's been unfailingly polite/patient/helpful/etc.
andrewvc 17y ago
Zed's a great guy, hell of a programmer, and from what I've read of his, he's got a good heart. However, he sure makes it hard to like him. I'll admit that the GPL is, at its heart, a cynical license, and that's what makes it so useful... But christ, the GPL is also the centerpiece of a community based around a certain large amount of altruism, I'm unnerved to not see that mentioned, though given the fact that it's Zed writing I can hardly say I'm surprised.
- greendestiny 17y ago
  Maybe its wrong for GPL to be by the center of that community. I think it holds that place for mainly historical reasons, maybe its time to move on. Time for other licenses not to be seen as selling out - because it seems one of the main uses of GPL is to sell commercial licenses and restrict other developers.
  - adharmad 17y ago
    Care to give any examples? Also why all this GPL hate on HN?
    - greendestiny 17y ago
      Well Qt for one.
      - adharmad 17y ago
        Yes QT does have this kindof bait-and-switch licensing. Some would call it a business model similar to a lot of startups :)
    - bjelkeman-again 17y ago
      I think that HN is read by a lot of people who want to start a company and make a lot of money. There aren't that many business models (which I know of) to build software, give it away for free and make a lot of money. If that is your goal, then I think some people perceive GPL as a road block rather than a help. (I mean, if you want to build proprietary software, then it would be a lot easier if everything was licensed under a BSD license.)
lsc 17y ago
I find the dynamics of venture-backed (vs. bootstrapped) companies to be telling. I mean, not everyone who runs a venture-backed company is shallow or trying to fool you, but there is definitely a much stronger emphasis on appearance, when you are using other people's money. Personally, I would be fine working for a venture-backed startup (I mean, if I needed to work for other people, which is something I'll avoid if I can.) But when it comes to my own company, really unless my investor is someone I'd want as a partner without the money, I'd rather get a dayjob.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
wvenable 17y ago
There seems to be this whole generation of open source programmers who think that software development is a game. Zed gave away his software to get all kinds of accolades and adoring fans -- which, when you think about it, is pretty bloody bizarre. Open source software is wonderful because it keeps us programmers from constantly reinventing the wheel. It gives us all the collective ability to improve the infrastructure that our products depend on. It's not really surprising that the most mature, stable, and user-friendly products are operating systems, web servers, database servers, and so on. It's bottom layer that programmers use to build software products regular people use. Zed's pissed because Mongrel doesn't get mentioned anywhere. I use open source software in my business all the time to advance what we can deliver to our customers; if someone wants to know what we run, I'll tell them. But guess what, they don't want to know! If all Zed wanted was credit, he should have picked a product with more MBA appeal. Instead he build a web server -- that's infrastructure -- and nobody outside of the programming community gives a crap about infrastructure. It's the final product that matters. Even if Ruby on Rails gets mentioned, most people wouldn't know the difference between it and PHP. All they know is that you're in the same camp as 37 signals. Just as companies that use PHP will say it's the same technology that powers Facebook. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what license he gives his software for the game he's playing. The rest of us, however, just want to get our work done.
- lsc 17y ago
  I think a lot of this 'I don't care about infrastructure' is specific to webapp programmers - If you write infrastructure that the SysAdmins like, we do celebrate you to a certain extent. Programmers (well, webapp programmers, and yeah, some of them do qualify as 'real programmers' in spite of the stereotype.) seem to be more MBA-influenced than SysAdmins, which I guess makes sense, if your business model is to build something cool and then have a MBA buy it.
  - wvenable 17y ago
    Web app programmers care about infrastructure; hacker news wouldn't exist if we weren't constantly talking about it. Hell, even this rant from Zed is now on the top. Zed gets all the credit he can possibly get from Mongrel -- hell, I'm not even a RoR developer and I know he's the primary author. I use Apache, but I couldn't tell you who's in charge of it right now. It seems strange to me that, as he says: "when I would try to get work, it was impossible for me to explain the magnitude of Mongrel’s impact". Who was he talking to in these companies? My point is that MBA's don't care about Mongrel. HR drones don't care about Mongrel. If that's who he wants to target, stop building the next mail server and start building to next twitter -- it's probably less technically interesting but you'll be more popular.
joshu 17y ago
Investors don't give a shit what software you're running, so long as it doesn't introduce liabilities. I don't think Mongrel's GPL status really caused this; instead, the VAST majority of web servers are still Apache etc.
- sho 17y ago
  Mongrel was dual licensed, under GPL2 and the much more permissive Ruby licenese, so I don't think it was really an issue at all.
omouse 17y ago
The only problem I have with this article is that Zed assumes that the software is given away for free. You can charge whatever amount you like for GPL software, it's just that a lot of developers feel bad about asking for $$ like that.
- boucher 17y ago
  It's true that you can charge for GPL software. It's just not a particularly good strategy. Because invariably, that software will wind up easily accessible on the Internet for free, maybe even with a higher page rank than your own page. That's why companies typically dual license or charge for support with GPL software.
  - blasdel 17y ago
    For an example, see the hilarity of when Sveasoft tried to sell subscription access to GPL linux router firmwares -- it actually worked for a little while when they were the only game in town, but quickly disintegrated. Eventually they just started ripping off OpenWRT and died.
mtodd 17y ago
Thanks for sharing, but I do definitely disagree on a few points. Primarily, and boiled down, it's a fundamental disagreement on the motivation of open source software. Where I totally agree with your sentiment of wanting compensation for your generally great karma, there's also no guarantee when you release your code that it will ever profit you in any way other than notoriety and useful code. I think the way the open source model works is by creating a business (support or consultation) around your software, or by writing open source software from your own needs (often in support/consultation). We often associate ourselves too closely with our software, both in its failure and its success. We should make sure to keep ourselves somewhat disconnected. We do this in part by releasing something as open source, but that's just the first step.
- adharmad 17y ago
  Everyone has their own motivations for writing open source software. Some of them just feel that if you are using help from others (using GPLed software), you need to pay back in kind (under certain conditions). In the end, GPL does not care much about the developer's right. It cares more about the rights of the end users. (That's why it mostly kicks in upon distribution). On the other hand, BSD does not care about its developers, nor its users. Otherwise Theo De Raadt wouldn't be writing caustic emails on how Sun bundled his software without giving him a cent in return............... And in a way I agree with Zed. Instead of bad mouthing GPL, people will do better to let the market deal with it - if enough coders do not want to use GPL, surely it will die a natural death.
blasdel 17y ago
Uh, Zed? You know the GPL doesn't have (and expressly forbids adding) any sort of advertising clause, right? And you know how all those fly-by-night VC-casino startups prattle on about 'cloud' and don't generally distribute software that you execute on your own computer? (and when they do it sure as fuck isn't Ruby or Python) Yeah. I don't really see anybody needing to 'convey' software that uses lamson. Not only is nobody going to want to buy a license from you, are you really going to get copyright assignment from all contributors before relicensing their work? On one end of the spectrum, the Linux kernel, the GPL works perfectly! There is a nice crystal clear boundary between kernelspace and userspace already, and the gray border region of closed commercial drivers works itself out due to the companies' desire to maintain one codebase (it's not a derived work if the same blob is used in Windows!). On the opposite end (in order of increasing ridiculousness) there's libraries for doing basic shit in Python or Ruby, frameworks for sugaring Javascript or CSS, and motherfucking Wordpress themes. Here is where the GPL falls to pieces. Attempt no landing there.
- Kaizyn 17y ago
  Email and messaging services are just as essential today to the network infrastructure as are operating systems to desktop computing environments. There also exists a nice boundary between the service providers and users.
  - blasdel 17y ago
    But the network infrastructure is all 'cloud' and shit, increasingly wrapped up with the software being provided as a service, and that boundary between service providers and users makes the GPL pretty useless. The service providers never redistribute the software! I only see two groups of people trying to make money distributing the software itself: spammers, and sellers of shit to pile on top of Exchange.
- kragen 17y ago
  Do you know what the "(A/" in the title stands for?
  - 17y ago
socratees 17y ago
I totally agree with what Zed says there. And he rocks.
rajat 17y ago
He's not doing anything others haven't done before. It's what TrollTech did with QT for example, and how ghostscript was distributed. Use the GPL-ed version for open source software; pay money for a proprietary license for proprietary software. Lamson looks very useful. As was Mongrel.
cortesi 17y ago
Someone has to say it: Zed shaw is a cock. He doesn't get the recognition he thinks he deserves _partly_ because of his rotten public image, which he carefully crafted himself: crass, erratic, unprofessional, needy and infantile. The last damn thing a startup would want to do is to say "Here's Zed Shaw - we use his software, isn't that great?". I say "partly", because the other half of the equation is that he doesn't deserve the reputation he thinks he deserves. He is high-profile due to controversy, but plenty of other people have done more for the Open Source community with less kudos.
- kragen 17y ago
  Other people said it, but you said it better: "his rotten public image, which he carefully crafted himself: crass, erratic, unprofessional, needy and infantile." But yeah, there are a lot of people who are little-known but who have written a lot of the software we use every day, and even successfully built communities around it. Ian Lance Taylor, Rob Savoye, tom lane, Lou Montulli (!), Jacob Kaplan-Moss, Raymond Hettinger, Margo Seltzer, D. Richard Hipp, Ben Tilly, a cast of thousands.
  - cortesi 17y ago
    That's an excellent list! Anyone who doesn't recognise some of these names (I didn't) should google them immediately.
    - kragen 17y ago
      It's far from comprehensive; that's just a few people off the top of my head. We should make Free Software Hacker Trading Cards like baseball trading cards or something.
  - luckystrike 17y ago
    Thanks for the list. And for people like me who don't know much about (some of) them, here is a primer: Ian Lance Taylor - gcc maintainer, creator of GNU UUCP Rob Savoye - primary developer of Gnash Tom Lane - member of the core PostgreSQL development team, standardization of JPEG Lou Montulli - co-authored Lynx, came up with HTTP Cookies and HTTP Proxying Jacob Kaplan-Moss - Django maintainer Raymond Hettinger - core developer for Python Margo Seltzer - Berkley DB architect D. Richard Hipp - architect and primary author of SQLite Ben Tilly - developed a bunch of Perl modules Edit: Added standardization of JPEG to Tom Lane's intro.
blasdel 17y ago
I just realized: Zed made a (pretty good) point a while back about how he'll be happy to have all the Spammers using Lamson, if only to make Spam less mediocre. Good luck getting the Russian Business Network to abide by the GPL!
- praptak 17y ago
  "Good luck getting the Russian Business Network to abide by the GPL!" Why would they need to violate it? They don't distribute any code except trojans and worms.
snprbob86 17y ago
Every time I think I understand software licenses, I immediately think I don't. The posts I've seen today have only served to confuse me more. Is there a simple, understandable, maybe even FUN, required reading page on this subject? I'm looking for "talk to me like I'm a 3 year old" but also "don't waste my time". Suggestions?
- jacobian 17y ago
  The best single work I've read on the subject is Van Lindberg's _Intellectual Property and Open Source_ (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0596517963/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0596517963/). I don't think it's quite "talk to me like I'm a 3 year old" territory -- it assumes a basic understanding of code and property -- but I don't think it's a waste of time.
- galactus 17y ago
  From Richard Gabriel & Ron goldman "Innovation happens elsewhere". Gabriel's prose is almost always very pleasant to read: http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-42.html#pgfId-956546 http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-42.html#pgfId-956546 http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-47.html#pgfId-956575 http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-47.html#pgfId-956575
- tsally 17y ago
  The licenses are actually not that long. Just read them. You'll be able to make a pretty good guess as to what they are meant for and how they will work in practice. If you want airtight legal advice, only a lawyer can get you that.
- lucifer 17y ago
  Here is the exact opposite of what you asked for: http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr (via boing boing)
- petercooper 17y ago
  The Wikipedia entries for various licenses are pretty concise and straight shooting, I find. I had the same problem as you until I read them.
- 17y ago
almost 17y ago
"I believe that whatever the author wants to do with his or her works is their right." That right there is all the argument I think he really needs. It's his damn software and no one else has the right to get pissed off at him for his choice of license. That being said, I don't think it's going to get him what he wants. People will still be able to use it in their web apps without giving him credit. And who's going to risk hiring someone who (at least gives the impression of being) as caustic and erratic as Zed. He's probably not like that in person but the risk that he might be would be to high for most people I would have thought.
ErrantX 17y ago
As much as he makes good and bad points I think some of the commentary here is unfair; I think Zed is just explaining why he wants to use GPL license from now on. As someone who has been "burned" on some minor pieces of code I agree with him somewhat. If, for example, I laid down some pretty useful code and open sourced it - then a startup came along, used it to bootleg their code and made millions I'd be pretty upset. That's not what it was open sourced for (because no one benefits from their millions). Perhaps no money required but it is nice for companies in those situations to say "yeh and we built it on the awesome XXXXX (link to site)". Because that means more people can find something that is useful to them.
- zmimon 17y ago
  I'm sorry, if you released the software under a liberal open source license then you weren't "burned". I don't get what it is that makes people release software under licenses that say "do whatever you want with my code" and then suddenly get all self-righteous when someone actually does that. Be pleased and flattered your software is being used - if that wasn't your original motivation then you chose the wrong license to begin with.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Hence the quote marks. I didnt hugely mind the use of my code. It just sucked that after beign asked they refused to push fixes and improvements back into the public branch. That's takign advantage of the permissive license IMO :) >Be pleased and flattered your software is being used No one is suggesting this isnt the case :) it's possible to be flattered by some and frustrated by others (indeed if they refuse to add code to the "pot" I dont consider their use very flattering....)
- e4m 17y ago
  "If, for example, I laid down some pretty useful code and open sourced it - then a startup came along, used it to bootleg their code and made millions I'd be pretty upset." I wonder if Linus is upset with RedHat?
  - 17y ago
jasonkester 17y ago
Does anybody actually read, let alone abide by these open source licenses? I can't imagine actually picking through one of them and making strategy decisions based on them. Has anybody ever actually been called on it? Are there really companies that have open-sourced their entire product just because they use some random little GPL library? I tend to avoid using 3rd party code, as it invariably ends up being garbage, but I'm happy to use the odd open source software package to do my work. If any of those packages stuck some silly gotcha clause into their license agreement, I wouldn't know about it. And I certainly wouldn't spend my time worrying about it.
- nailer 17y ago
  Google 'Cisco vs the FSF'.
  - jasonkester 17y ago
    I guess it's not surprising to see big names suing each other over this stuff. I guess I was referring to the little guys (like us) using random open source packages. Anybody know of a case more along the lines of '[random PHP image rotation library from SourceForge] vs. rtatr.com (rotate your images online!)'?
    - mattyb 17y ago
      I highly suggest you read the GPL one more time. If you're hosting a web app that rotates images for people, that random library is running on (effectively) your server. You're distributing the end, not the means. The GPL does not restrict you in this regard. If, however, you wanted to package up your app ('Run your own image-rotation service!') and distribute it to folks, you have to release it under a GPL-compatible license. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well. To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. The GPL (v3, at least) restricts conveying. GPL v2 states the following: 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: So long as you do not distribute your modified copy, there is no need to abide by the conditions following that section.
pkrumins 17y ago
this is ridiculous. who cares about licenses. just get the stuff done. doesn't make any sense to argue about license. just choose the first one.
GrandMasterBirt 17y ago
I completely agree with Zed regarding the licensing. If it is so revolutionary and gpl is unacceptable then we should just buy the right to not abide by gpl from the author. However what happenbs if Zed gets hit by a truck tomorrow and dies. Is all hope for companies using gpled stuff for their own use gone as well?
eli 17y ago
I don't get it. Is he talking about people who modified/improved Mongrel and then didn't release the patches or credit him? Because I don't see how the GPL would affect people who just use the software in their stack.
tsally 17y ago
For the people on here who hate the GPL, you need to realize that you can make large (sometimes even massive) contributions to the open source community and still run a multi-million dollar business. I've written about this before. See a previous discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=527660 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=527660 Also, even if you are a cold selfish human being, realize that your continued success depends on the success of open source software. Those servers you're running? You'd have to use Windows Server if it wasn't for open source. And let's not even get into what you use for your backup strategy, version control, and text editing. It's a classic situation where you are focused on short term profit and no attention is paid to what is necessary for long term success. The open source developers will leave if they have to, or just license everything under the AGPL like Zed suggests.
jgalvez 17y ago
Can someone please explain to me why people care so much about licenses? I mean, what prevents people from actually going forward and using Zed Shaw's GPL code in a startup? How could he possibly find out? I mean, srsly... If you're releasing source code, you're pretty much giving away your software for free with no guarantees of acknowledgement whatsoever. Period. End of story. Deal with it. Licensing it with the GPL will not give you magical special powers over the code and prevent people from making evil money from your lost nights of coding. It is a especially futile endeavor if you're writing software that runs on servers. It sounds like Zed Shaw is pissed because the entire RoR community used his server and he didn't get any money from it, or any cool job, even. I, for one, think Mongrel lacked a good deal of branding, and Zed's online personality doesn't seem to have helped much. Compare Mongrel with Ruby Enterprise Edition and Passenger. These guys are fucking geniuses coz they wrote awesome opensource software and had an awesome business-y site to accompany it.
- gjm11 17y ago
  "I mean, what prevents people from actually going forward and using Zed Shaw's GPL code in a startup?" Decency. It turns out that quite a lot of people have some of that.
  - jgalvez 17y ago
    Sure. I just don't think it would have been all that much different if Zed had licensed Mongrel with the GPL to start with. It would still have been a mostly unmentioned piece of software atop many other unmentioned GPL-licensed software startups still use. My point is that if you're looking for proper recognition of your work, licensing it the GPL is not a totally effective path to take, in all practicality. Or rather, it's not the /only/ thing you need to do. Actually, it's surprising how many business-y people I know have no idea about what the GPL really is and how BSD/MIT etc differ from it. If the goal is to be properly /financially/ recognized, i.e., make money from it, have a restrictive commercial license, like it's been done on all kinds of other software for the past 20 years or so, 'open source' or not. I understand Zed's motivation, I just think having it GPL is a futile effort to prevent other people from abusing his work, coz even tho there's "quite a lot" of decent people out there, there are also "quite a lot" of people who simply. don't. give. a. shit. fwiw, all the code I write is either BSD-licensed or Python-licensed. Let's just be real.
gfunk911 17y ago
Zed should make his own BSD-style license that says you can use his software freely, as long as you send him a notarized letter stating you're using it, along with a note on your website. I can't tell if I'm joking or not. (To be clear, I think Zed is awesome, and he has the right to use whatever license he wants. Oh, and we use Mongrel).
- thras 17y ago
  What has Zed gotten out of your Mongrel use? And what have you gotten from it, financially?
  - tjogin 17y ago
    What makes Zed so special that he should "get something out of" his freely released software — while the developers of all the other parts of the system that are required for everything to work, don't? A list of all the developers whose free software contributions are necessary for a website to be used would not be short. It would be absolutely ginormous.
    - thras 17y ago
      Zed's not special. People who write code should be rewarded for their work: "the labourer is worthy of his hire," after all. This is why BSD-style licenses in a world where multimillion-dollar companies make a killing off of the code you write don't make sense for the individual developer -- especially when you're a star contributor.
      - Tichy 17y ago
        Not everybody who uses Mongrel is a multimillion-dollar company. Maybe if it wasn't free, nobody would be using Rails and Mongrel - everybody would be on C# and Mono. There is always competition, so "should be rewarded" is really determined by the market. You can't just work on anything and then demand money for it. Mongrel that costs money would be a different product from Mongrel that is free.
goodgoblin 17y ago
Well - I love mongrel, and I love Zed too. One thing he can hang is hat on is that by giving away mongrel for free he really helped legitimize RoR by providing a stable platform, which helped the spread of RoR, which itself spawned many more applications, coded more quickly, and for less money, that themselves went out into the wild and helped to organize people's lives, or save them time, or money, and so contributed to the well being of humanity itself and perhaps brought us one step closer to the Singularity. So he's got that going for him, which is pretty good.
lucifer 17y ago
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Bill_Gates_Letter_to_Hobbyists.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Bill_Gate...
lucifer 17y ago
"The other reason I love writing email software is nobody else does. You guys are all giant pansies, even with a project like Lamson you’re still all afwaid of big bad monsta SMTP." http://james.apache.org/ http://james.apache.org/
chanux 17y ago
What Zed explains is really the idea behind GPL. getting something back for community.
kevinpet 17y ago
I would understand this rant if he were promoting AGPL exclusively. Can anyone explain how (L)GPL vs. BSD relates to any of his points?
oz 17y ago
Zed's damn right. I love free software as much as the next guy, but damn some people complain. If a man sits down and codes something, it's his decision to license it anyway he wants, and that includes NOT open sourcing it if he sees fit. Personally, I don't know if I have the patience to run an open source project. The attitude of many users implies that the developers owe them something. Be bloody grateful, or STFU. A guy named Mike develops free audio plugins for linux. (linuxdsp.co.uk) Obviously well done, and based on what I've heard, they sound good, but the only thing some people can see is the fact it's not open source. Reminds me of the doctrinal wars I used to participate in when I was a Christian. And hey, the Bible does say "the labourer is worthy of his wages"....
alfredp 17y ago
Today, musicians make products (music) that can be easily duplicated at no cost. We acknowledge their value by compensating them through the purchase via proper channels (CDs, iTunes, concerts) and express our appreciation by being fans. Software creators are not unlike these musicians; you pretty much need to have a record deal in order to get the money and the mainstream fans. In Zed Shaw's case, he's basically using GPL ensures that other people are not using his work to get the record deals.

279 points by twampss 17y ago

Summary: My code didn't make me rich and famous so I use these licenses so people have no choice. Fair enough, but I think the biggest reason people didn't give him respect and piles of money because of Mongrel or whatever wasn't that they wanted to steal his awesome code and exploit him, but it was because he was a douchebag to them and everyone else. Who wants to deal with someone that toxic? But, no no, it's not his fault. It's those meanies that jacked his code and didn't tell anyone. Jeez.

hvs 17y ago
Zed has a caustic personality, but I have to admit that the article was probably the most cogent argument for the GPL over BSD-style licenses that I've ever heard.
- cdibona 17y ago
  Which part? The only thing I found cogent was his assertion that he, as the author of the software, gets to pick the license, and if you don't like it you can go and write your own code. I think it is actually a mistake to think that a reciprocal license will lead to recognition in the form of accolades or money. Look at the accomplishments of the apache software foundation or the vast bsd communities. From the various companies I've worked with and consulted with over the many years, I'd say that the success or failure of the software released had nothing to do with the open source or free license chosen and everything to do with the utility of the software and personality of the releasing developer.
piramida 17y ago
Yeah and I also think he's missing the point that people use mongrel not because it's awesome like Zed, but because they don't have choice. Having deployed several mongrel-based servers I personally think mongrel is a crappy server, and is in fact one of the reasons we switched to python/django.
- jeremymcanally 17y ago
  Well that's not so much true anymore. I'd actually be interested to see its marketshare after the emergence of Passenger as a viable option, along with other proxying servers like Thin. But yeah for a while, it was Mongrel or (ew) Webrick. How far we've come! :P
  - misuba 17y ago
    Thin is built with the HTTP parsing code from Mongrel - and, curiously, has always admitted it. A large number of the people who shout "Mongrel sucks" have those funny ways of saying "except when it doesn't" under their breath right after.
  - carbon8 17y ago
    I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem like anyone willingly deploys new apps using mongrel anymore. It's all passenger, glassfish, etc these days.
- lsc 17y ago
  I don't see how that would change anything; better than the alternatives is.
mtodd 17y ago
Hmmm, I don't think that's true at all. Zed may have played this card online, but in reality, he's very professional and friendly when it counts. I would've loved the opportunity to work with him, and enjoyed every time I chatted with him (mostly at conferences).
- jeremymcanally 17y ago
  Yes, in person he's been nothing but courteous. But he has a bit of "The Facebook Dilemma" on his hands in that people who are likely to hire him will Google him or know him from his caustic posts already. So, rather than creating an opening for people to get to know him, he's managed to wall himself off in a nasty little shell. I'm sure his image reboot, what with going into Python, ditching the whole "ZSFA" moniker, and generally being a level headed guy will fare much better for him. He'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar, if you will.
tamersalama 17y ago
> he was a douchebag to them and everyone else. Haven't heard but favorable opinions of him. persona != personality
- tjogin 17y ago
  If you willingly make a douchebag "persona" for yourself, don't complain when people call you a douchebag.
  - nailer 17y ago
    I'd complain about people not understanding that a programmer with an electric guitar that shoots lightning surrounded by strippers might have been ironic.
    - tjogin 17y ago
      Generally speaking, people don't like ironic douchebags any better than they like regular douchebags.
      - nailer 17y ago
        Really? Look at Sasha Baron Cohen. As Borat, he's an ironic anti-Semite. Most people have noticed this, and if they find him funny, like him. Those same people would not like regular anti-Semites.
kngspook 17y ago
I think he was burned a bit by what happened in the Ruby/Rails/Mongrel/etc. situation, and it's even worse when it affects your livelihood, and he lashed out as a result. Outside of that situation, I've heard nothing of good things about him; and in my (limited, online-only) interactions with him, he's been unfailingly polite/patient/helpful/etc.

andrewvc 17y ago

Zed's a great guy, hell of a programmer, and from what I've read of his, he's got a good heart. However, he sure makes it hard to like him. I'll admit that the GPL is, at its heart, a cynical license, and that's what makes it so useful... But christ, the GPL is also the centerpiece of a community based around a certain large amount of altruism, I'm unnerved to not see that mentioned, though given the fact that it's Zed writing I can hardly say I'm surprised.

greendestiny 17y ago
Maybe its wrong for GPL to be by the center of that community. I think it holds that place for mainly historical reasons, maybe its time to move on. Time for other licenses not to be seen as selling out - because it seems one of the main uses of GPL is to sell commercial licenses and restrict other developers.
- adharmad 17y ago
  Care to give any examples? Also why all this GPL hate on HN?
  - greendestiny 17y ago
    Well Qt for one.
    - adharmad 17y ago
      Yes QT does have this kindof bait-and-switch licensing. Some would call it a business model similar to a lot of startups :)
  - bjelkeman-again 17y ago
    I think that HN is read by a lot of people who want to start a company and make a lot of money. There aren't that many business models (which I know of) to build software, give it away for free and make a lot of money. If that is your goal, then I think some people perceive GPL as a road block rather than a help. (I mean, if you want to build proprietary software, then it would be a lot easier if everything was licensed under a BSD license.)

lsc 17y ago

I find the dynamics of venture-backed (vs. bootstrapped) companies to be telling. I mean, not everyone who runs a venture-backed company is shallow or trying to fool you, but there is definitely a much stronger emphasis on appearance, when you are using other people's money. Personally, I would be fine working for a venture-backed startup (I mean, if I needed to work for other people, which is something I'll avoid if I can.) But when it comes to my own company, really unless my investor is someone I'd want as a partner without the money, I'd rather get a dayjob.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

wvenable 17y ago

There seems to be this whole generation of open source programmers who think that software development is a game. Zed gave away his software to get all kinds of accolades and adoring fans -- which, when you think about it, is pretty bloody bizarre. Open source software is wonderful because it keeps us programmers from constantly reinventing the wheel. It gives us all the collective ability to improve the infrastructure that our products depend on. It's not really surprising that the most mature, stable, and user-friendly products are operating systems, web servers, database servers, and so on. It's bottom layer that programmers use to build software products regular people use. Zed's pissed because Mongrel doesn't get mentioned anywhere. I use open source software in my business all the time to advance what we can deliver to our customers; if someone wants to know what we run, I'll tell them. But guess what, they don't want to know! If all Zed wanted was credit, he should have picked a product with more MBA appeal. Instead he build a web server -- that's infrastructure -- and nobody outside of the programming community gives a crap about infrastructure. It's the final product that matters. Even if Ruby on Rails gets mentioned, most people wouldn't know the difference between it and PHP. All they know is that you're in the same camp as 37 signals. Just as companies that use PHP will say it's the same technology that powers Facebook. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what license he gives his software for the game he's playing. The rest of us, however, just want to get our work done.

lsc 17y ago
I think a lot of this 'I don't care about infrastructure' is specific to webapp programmers - If you write infrastructure that the SysAdmins like, we do celebrate you to a certain extent. Programmers (well, webapp programmers, and yeah, some of them do qualify as 'real programmers' in spite of the stereotype.) seem to be more MBA-influenced than SysAdmins, which I guess makes sense, if your business model is to build something cool and then have a MBA buy it.
- wvenable 17y ago
  Web app programmers care about infrastructure; hacker news wouldn't exist if we weren't constantly talking about it. Hell, even this rant from Zed is now on the top. Zed gets all the credit he can possibly get from Mongrel -- hell, I'm not even a RoR developer and I know he's the primary author. I use Apache, but I couldn't tell you who's in charge of it right now. It seems strange to me that, as he says: "when I would try to get work, it was impossible for me to explain the magnitude of Mongrel’s impact". Who was he talking to in these companies? My point is that MBA's don't care about Mongrel. HR drones don't care about Mongrel. If that's who he wants to target, stop building the next mail server and start building to next twitter -- it's probably less technically interesting but you'll be more popular.

joshu 17y ago

Investors don't give a shit what software you're running, so long as it doesn't introduce liabilities. I don't think Mongrel's GPL status really caused this; instead, the VAST majority of web servers are still Apache etc.

sho 17y ago
Mongrel was dual licensed, under GPL2 and the much more permissive Ruby licenese, so I don't think it was really an issue at all.

omouse 17y ago

The only problem I have with this article is that Zed assumes that the software is given away for free. You can charge whatever amount you like for GPL software, it's just that a lot of developers feel bad about asking for $$ like that.

boucher 17y ago
It's true that you can charge for GPL software. It's just not a particularly good strategy. Because invariably, that software will wind up easily accessible on the Internet for free, maybe even with a higher page rank than your own page. That's why companies typically dual license or charge for support with GPL software.
- blasdel 17y ago
  For an example, see the hilarity of when Sveasoft tried to sell subscription access to GPL linux router firmwares -- it actually worked for a little while when they were the only game in town, but quickly disintegrated. Eventually they just started ripping off OpenWRT and died.

mtodd 17y ago

Thanks for sharing, but I do definitely disagree on a few points. Primarily, and boiled down, it's a fundamental disagreement on the motivation of open source software. Where I totally agree with your sentiment of wanting compensation for your generally great karma, there's also no guarantee when you release your code that it will ever profit you in any way other than notoriety and useful code. I think the way the open source model works is by creating a business (support or consultation) around your software, or by writing open source software from your own needs (often in support/consultation). We often associate ourselves too closely with our software, both in its failure and its success. We should make sure to keep ourselves somewhat disconnected. We do this in part by releasing something as open source, but that's just the first step.

adharmad 17y ago
Everyone has their own motivations for writing open source software. Some of them just feel that if you are using help from others (using GPLed software), you need to pay back in kind (under certain conditions). In the end, GPL does not care much about the developer's right. It cares more about the rights of the end users. (That's why it mostly kicks in upon distribution). On the other hand, BSD does not care about its developers, nor its users. Otherwise Theo De Raadt wouldn't be writing caustic emails on how Sun bundled his software without giving him a cent in return............... And in a way I agree with Zed. Instead of bad mouthing GPL, people will do better to let the market deal with it - if enough coders do not want to use GPL, surely it will die a natural death.

blasdel 17y ago

Uh, Zed? You know the GPL doesn't have (and expressly forbids adding) any sort of advertising clause, right? And you know how all those fly-by-night VC-casino startups prattle on about 'cloud' and don't generally distribute software that you execute on your own computer? (and when they do it sure as fuck isn't Ruby or Python) Yeah. I don't really see anybody needing to 'convey' software that uses lamson. Not only is nobody going to want to buy a license from you, are you really going to get copyright assignment from all contributors before relicensing their work? On one end of the spectrum, the Linux kernel, the GPL works perfectly! There is a nice crystal clear boundary between kernelspace and userspace already, and the gray border region of closed commercial drivers works itself out due to the companies' desire to maintain one codebase (it's not a derived work if the same blob is used in Windows!). On the opposite end (in order of increasing ridiculousness) there's libraries for doing basic shit in Python or Ruby, frameworks for sugaring Javascript or CSS, and motherfucking Wordpress themes. Here is where the GPL falls to pieces. Attempt no landing there.

Kaizyn 17y ago
Email and messaging services are just as essential today to the network infrastructure as are operating systems to desktop computing environments. There also exists a nice boundary between the service providers and users.
- blasdel 17y ago
  But the network infrastructure is all 'cloud' and shit, increasingly wrapped up with the software being provided as a service, and that boundary between service providers and users makes the GPL pretty useless. The service providers never redistribute the software! I only see two groups of people trying to make money distributing the software itself: spammers, and sellers of shit to pile on top of Exchange.
kragen 17y ago
Do you know what the "(A/" in the title stands for?
- 17y ago

socratees 17y ago

I totally agree with what Zed says there. And he rocks.

rajat 17y ago

He's not doing anything others haven't done before. It's what TrollTech did with QT for example, and how ghostscript was distributed. Use the GPL-ed version for open source software; pay money for a proprietary license for proprietary software. Lamson looks very useful. As was Mongrel.

cortesi 17y ago

Someone has to say it: Zed shaw is a cock. He doesn't get the recognition he thinks he deserves _partly_ because of his rotten public image, which he carefully crafted himself: crass, erratic, unprofessional, needy and infantile. The last damn thing a startup would want to do is to say "Here's Zed Shaw - we use his software, isn't that great?". I say "partly", because the other half of the equation is that he doesn't deserve the reputation he thinks he deserves. He is high-profile due to controversy, but plenty of other people have done more for the Open Source community with less kudos.

kragen 17y ago
Other people said it, but you said it better: "his rotten public image, which he carefully crafted himself: crass, erratic, unprofessional, needy and infantile." But yeah, there are a lot of people who are little-known but who have written a lot of the software we use every day, and even successfully built communities around it. Ian Lance Taylor, Rob Savoye, tom lane, Lou Montulli (!), Jacob Kaplan-Moss, Raymond Hettinger, Margo Seltzer, D. Richard Hipp, Ben Tilly, a cast of thousands.
- cortesi 17y ago
  That's an excellent list! Anyone who doesn't recognise some of these names (I didn't) should google them immediately.
  - kragen 17y ago
    It's far from comprehensive; that's just a few people off the top of my head. We should make Free Software Hacker Trading Cards like baseball trading cards or something.
- luckystrike 17y ago
  Thanks for the list. And for people like me who don't know much about (some of) them, here is a primer: Ian Lance Taylor - gcc maintainer, creator of GNU UUCP Rob Savoye - primary developer of Gnash Tom Lane - member of the core PostgreSQL development team, standardization of JPEG Lou Montulli - co-authored Lynx, came up with HTTP Cookies and HTTP Proxying Jacob Kaplan-Moss - Django maintainer Raymond Hettinger - core developer for Python Margo Seltzer - Berkley DB architect D. Richard Hipp - architect and primary author of SQLite Ben Tilly - developed a bunch of Perl modules Edit: Added standardization of JPEG to Tom Lane's intro.

blasdel 17y ago

I just realized: Zed made a (pretty good) point a while back about how he'll be happy to have all the Spammers using Lamson, if only to make Spam less mediocre. Good luck getting the Russian Business Network to abide by the GPL!

praptak 17y ago
"Good luck getting the Russian Business Network to abide by the GPL!" Why would they need to violate it? They don't distribute any code except trojans and worms.

snprbob86 17y ago

Every time I think I understand software licenses, I immediately think I don't. The posts I've seen today have only served to confuse me more. Is there a simple, understandable, maybe even FUN, required reading page on this subject? I'm looking for "talk to me like I'm a 3 year old" but also "don't waste my time". Suggestions?

jacobian 17y ago
The best single work I've read on the subject is Van Lindberg's _Intellectual Property and Open Source_ (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0596517963/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0596517963/). I don't think it's quite "talk to me like I'm a 3 year old" territory -- it assumes a basic understanding of code and property -- but I don't think it's a waste of time.
galactus 17y ago
From Richard Gabriel & Ron goldman "Innovation happens elsewhere". Gabriel's prose is almost always very pleasant to read: http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-42.html#pgfId-956546 http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-42.html#pgfId-956546 http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-47.html#pgfId-956575 http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-47.html#pgfId-956575
tsally 17y ago
The licenses are actually not that long. Just read them. You'll be able to make a pretty good guess as to what they are meant for and how they will work in practice. If you want airtight legal advice, only a lawyer can get you that.
lucifer 17y ago
Here is the exact opposite of what you asked for: http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr (via boing boing)
petercooper 17y ago
The Wikipedia entries for various licenses are pretty concise and straight shooting, I find. I had the same problem as you until I read them.
17y ago

almost 17y ago

"I believe that whatever the author wants to do with his or her works is their right." That right there is all the argument I think he really needs. It's his damn software and no one else has the right to get pissed off at him for his choice of license. That being said, I don't think it's going to get him what he wants. People will still be able to use it in their web apps without giving him credit. And who's going to risk hiring someone who (at least gives the impression of being) as caustic and erratic as Zed. He's probably not like that in person but the risk that he might be would be to high for most people I would have thought.

ErrantX 17y ago

As much as he makes good and bad points I think some of the commentary here is unfair; I think Zed is just explaining why he wants to use GPL license from now on. As someone who has been "burned" on some minor pieces of code I agree with him somewhat. If, for example, I laid down some pretty useful code and open sourced it - then a startup came along, used it to bootleg their code and made millions I'd be pretty upset. That's not what it was open sourced for (because no one benefits from their millions). Perhaps no money required but it is nice for companies in those situations to say "yeh and we built it on the awesome XXXXX (link to site)". Because that means more people can find something that is useful to them.

zmimon 17y ago
I'm sorry, if you released the software under a liberal open source license then you weren't "burned". I don't get what it is that makes people release software under licenses that say "do whatever you want with my code" and then suddenly get all self-righteous when someone actually does that. Be pleased and flattered your software is being used - if that wasn't your original motivation then you chose the wrong license to begin with.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Hence the quote marks. I didnt hugely mind the use of my code. It just sucked that after beign asked they refused to push fixes and improvements back into the public branch. That's takign advantage of the permissive license IMO :) >Be pleased and flattered your software is being used No one is suggesting this isnt the case :) it's possible to be flattered by some and frustrated by others (indeed if they refuse to add code to the "pot" I dont consider their use very flattering....)
e4m 17y ago
"If, for example, I laid down some pretty useful code and open sourced it - then a startup came along, used it to bootleg their code and made millions I'd be pretty upset." I wonder if Linus is upset with RedHat?
- 17y ago

jasonkester 17y ago

Does anybody actually read, let alone abide by these open source licenses? I can't imagine actually picking through one of them and making strategy decisions based on them. Has anybody ever actually been called on it? Are there really companies that have open-sourced their entire product just because they use some random little GPL library? I tend to avoid using 3rd party code, as it invariably ends up being garbage, but I'm happy to use the odd open source software package to do my work. If any of those packages stuck some silly gotcha clause into their license agreement, I wouldn't know about it. And I certainly wouldn't spend my time worrying about it.

nailer 17y ago
Google 'Cisco vs the FSF'.
- jasonkester 17y ago
  I guess it's not surprising to see big names suing each other over this stuff. I guess I was referring to the little guys (like us) using random open source packages. Anybody know of a case more along the lines of '[random PHP image rotation library from SourceForge] vs. rtatr.com (rotate your images online!)'?
  - mattyb 17y ago
    I highly suggest you read the GPL one more time. If you're hosting a web app that rotates images for people, that random library is running on (effectively) your server. You're distributing the end, not the means. The GPL does not restrict you in this regard. If, however, you wanted to package up your app ('Run your own image-rotation service!') and distribute it to folks, you have to release it under a GPL-compatible license. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well. To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. The GPL (v3, at least) restricts conveying. GPL v2 states the following: 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: So long as you do not distribute your modified copy, there is no need to abide by the conditions following that section.

pkrumins 17y ago

this is ridiculous. who cares about licenses. just get the stuff done. doesn't make any sense to argue about license. just choose the first one.

GrandMasterBirt 17y ago

I completely agree with Zed regarding the licensing. If it is so revolutionary and gpl is unacceptable then we should just buy the right to not abide by gpl from the author. However what happenbs if Zed gets hit by a truck tomorrow and dies. Is all hope for companies using gpled stuff for their own use gone as well?

eli 17y ago

I don't get it. Is he talking about people who modified/improved Mongrel and then didn't release the patches or credit him? Because I don't see how the GPL would affect people who just use the software in their stack.

tsally 17y ago

For the people on here who hate the GPL, you need to realize that you can make large (sometimes even massive) contributions to the open source community and still run a multi-million dollar business. I've written about this before. See a previous discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=527660 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=527660 Also, even if you are a cold selfish human being, realize that your continued success depends on the success of open source software. Those servers you're running? You'd have to use Windows Server if it wasn't for open source. And let's not even get into what you use for your backup strategy, version control, and text editing. It's a classic situation where you are focused on short term profit and no attention is paid to what is necessary for long term success. The open source developers will leave if they have to, or just license everything under the AGPL like Zed suggests.

jgalvez 17y ago

Can someone please explain to me why people care so much about licenses? I mean, what prevents people from actually going forward and using Zed Shaw's GPL code in a startup? How could he possibly find out? I mean, srsly... If you're releasing source code, you're pretty much giving away your software for free with no guarantees of acknowledgement whatsoever. Period. End of story. Deal with it. Licensing it with the GPL will not give you magical special powers over the code and prevent people from making evil money from your lost nights of coding. It is a especially futile endeavor if you're writing software that runs on servers. It sounds like Zed Shaw is pissed because the entire RoR community used his server and he didn't get any money from it, or any cool job, even. I, for one, think Mongrel lacked a good deal of branding, and Zed's online personality doesn't seem to have helped much. Compare Mongrel with Ruby Enterprise Edition and Passenger. These guys are fucking geniuses coz they wrote awesome opensource software and had an awesome business-y site to accompany it.

gjm11 17y ago
"I mean, what prevents people from actually going forward and using Zed Shaw's GPL code in a startup?" Decency. It turns out that quite a lot of people have some of that.
- jgalvez 17y ago
  Sure. I just don't think it would have been all that much different if Zed had licensed Mongrel with the GPL to start with. It would still have been a mostly unmentioned piece of software atop many other unmentioned GPL-licensed software startups still use. My point is that if you're looking for proper recognition of your work, licensing it the GPL is not a totally effective path to take, in all practicality. Or rather, it's not the /only/ thing you need to do. Actually, it's surprising how many business-y people I know have no idea about what the GPL really is and how BSD/MIT etc differ from it. If the goal is to be properly /financially/ recognized, i.e., make money from it, have a restrictive commercial license, like it's been done on all kinds of other software for the past 20 years or so, 'open source' or not. I understand Zed's motivation, I just think having it GPL is a futile effort to prevent other people from abusing his work, coz even tho there's "quite a lot" of decent people out there, there are also "quite a lot" of people who simply. don't. give. a. shit. fwiw, all the code I write is either BSD-licensed or Python-licensed. Let's just be real.

gfunk911 17y ago

Zed should make his own BSD-style license that says you can use his software freely, as long as you send him a notarized letter stating you're using it, along with a note on your website. I can't tell if I'm joking or not. (To be clear, I think Zed is awesome, and he has the right to use whatever license he wants. Oh, and we use Mongrel).

thras 17y ago
What has Zed gotten out of your Mongrel use? And what have you gotten from it, financially?
- tjogin 17y ago
  What makes Zed so special that he should "get something out of" his freely released software — while the developers of all the other parts of the system that are required for everything to work, don't? A list of all the developers whose free software contributions are necessary for a website to be used would not be short. It would be absolutely ginormous.
  - thras 17y ago
    Zed's not special. People who write code should be rewarded for their work: "the labourer is worthy of his hire," after all. This is why BSD-style licenses in a world where multimillion-dollar companies make a killing off of the code you write don't make sense for the individual developer -- especially when you're a star contributor.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      Not everybody who uses Mongrel is a multimillion-dollar company. Maybe if it wasn't free, nobody would be using Rails and Mongrel - everybody would be on C# and Mono. There is always competition, so "should be rewarded" is really determined by the market. You can't just work on anything and then demand money for it. Mongrel that costs money would be a different product from Mongrel that is free.

goodgoblin 17y ago

Well - I love mongrel, and I love Zed too. One thing he can hang is hat on is that by giving away mongrel for free he really helped legitimize RoR by providing a stable platform, which helped the spread of RoR, which itself spawned many more applications, coded more quickly, and for less money, that themselves went out into the wild and helped to organize people's lives, or save them time, or money, and so contributed to the well being of humanity itself and perhaps brought us one step closer to the Singularity. So he's got that going for him, which is pretty good.

lucifer 17y ago

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Bill_Gates_Letter_to_Hobbyists.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Bill_Gate...

lucifer 17y ago

"The other reason I love writing email software is nobody else does. You guys are all giant pansies, even with a project like Lamson you’re still all afwaid of big bad monsta SMTP." http://james.apache.org/ http://james.apache.org/

chanux 17y ago

What Zed explains is really the idea behind GPL. getting something back for community.

kevinpet 17y ago

I would understand this rant if he were promoting AGPL exclusively. Can anyone explain how (L)GPL vs. BSD relates to any of his points?

oz 17y ago

Zed's damn right. I love free software as much as the next guy, but damn some people complain. If a man sits down and codes something, it's his decision to license it anyway he wants, and that includes NOT open sourcing it if he sees fit. Personally, I don't know if I have the patience to run an open source project. The attitude of many users implies that the developers owe them something. Be bloody grateful, or STFU. A guy named Mike develops free audio plugins for linux. (linuxdsp.co.uk) Obviously well done, and based on what I've heard, they sound good, but the only thing some people can see is the fact it's not open source. Reminds me of the doctrinal wars I used to participate in when I was a Christian. And hey, the Bible does say "the labourer is worthy of his wages"....

alfredp 17y ago

Today, musicians make products (music) that can be easily duplicated at no cost. We acknowledge their value by compensating them through the purchase via proper channels (CDs, iTunes, concerts) and express our appreciation by being fans. Software creators are not unlike these musicians; you pretty much need to have a record deal in order to get the money and the mainstream fans. In Zed Shaw's case, he's basically using GPL ensures that other people are not using his work to get the record deals.