4 ms·

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

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.)
    - adharmad 17y ago
      Thanks for the explanation. Agreed that BSD is the license of choice for people building proprietary software. Except for 2 points: - In my lurkings on HN (for a few months now), I have seen that most folks here are pretty fair. Surely then they realize that choosing a license is the prerogative of the author. This is nothing to hate or get angry about.......just respect the writer of the code. There should be plenty of similar projects with more acceptable licenses if someone digs around. And if more people start using them, they will, in time be more popular than their GPL counterparts. After all, what is an open source project without a community? - Writing webapps (as a lot of projects on HN seem to do) does not require one to open source one's backend application.
    - dave_au 17y ago
      I'd like to hear more about why the GPL would be a roadblock. If you're writing code and see the GPL as a roadblock, then you can use a different license. If you want to use code that is under the license and see the license as a roadblock, no one is forcing you to use that code. It's either compelling enough code that you'll deal with the licensing, or it's not compelling enough and you'll have to roll your own. It's basically just a non-monetary price point then, isn't it? Am I missing something or is there some kind of assumption that people are entitled to other peoples work if they GPL it? (Not saying that you make the assumption personally, but that you might be assuming that is what is stopping others) I'm all thinking aloud / genuinely interested in what the issues are here.
      - greendestiny 17y ago
        In a perfect world where developers have chosen exactly the license they want then there is nothing really worth discussing. However I think a lot of times people put their software under the GPL because of its position in the open source world, and the rhetoric of the FSF. There is a continuum from having your code used in a completely non-commercial project to being used by Microsoft in some terrible software. The FSF seems to be still in a mindset where software was controlled by these large companies who are the enemy. I think we've moved on, and I would like the community to reflect that a bit better.
  - bad_user 17y ago
    I don't think people hate the GPL per se. It's more about the way GPL is promoted ... in the name of freedom and all that shit, when in reality GPL is more likely to be used in instances where the company wants to sell commercial licenses. What I don't like about the GPL is that it limits the choice of license for derived works ... where "derived" has a very broad meaning (if your software uses a GPL component, and that GPL component has no replacement, no matter how trivial it would be to implement one, than it's a derived work). This is in contrast to .NET for example, which is proprietary and doesn't permit changes to the code base and it's not developed in the open ... but it doesn't restrict your choice of license. Another bad example ... Qt's licensing may have been good for Trolltech, but because of that Gnome / GTK+ happened. As a result there are more third party applications (both proprietary and open-source) written on top of GTK+ / Gnome, although it is an inferior technological choice. Qt got LGPL'ed (finally) but I think it's too little, too late (regarding the Linux desktop). The GPL (not talking about LGPL) is a good license if used for the right purpose. But it is promoted as being the backbone of software freedom, and looking unbiased at its current usage, that's just not true.
alanlinzer 17y ago
Do you even know what altruism is? It bothers me how easy people use this word. Do you really think open source programmers are "disinterested and selfless for the well-being of others"?! They want recognition for the contributions because it's in their self-interest to be noticed, respected and validated by their peers.
- netsp 17y ago
  That would satisfy many thoughtful people's definition of altruism.
- andrewvc 17y ago
  Some of us feel grateful for what the world of FOSS has given us and enjoy giving back. Given the condescending and crude tone of your comment it's no wonder such concepts are foreign to you.
  - omouse 17y ago
    You have warped definitions for the words "condescending" and "crude".
  - alanlinzer 17y ago
    It's an insult to assume people would rather work for your personal gain than their own.
    - netsp 17y ago
      How so?

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.)
  - adharmad 17y ago
    Thanks for the explanation. Agreed that BSD is the license of choice for people building proprietary software. Except for 2 points: - In my lurkings on HN (for a few months now), I have seen that most folks here are pretty fair. Surely then they realize that choosing a license is the prerogative of the author. This is nothing to hate or get angry about.......just respect the writer of the code. There should be plenty of similar projects with more acceptable licenses if someone digs around. And if more people start using them, they will, in time be more popular than their GPL counterparts. After all, what is an open source project without a community? - Writing webapps (as a lot of projects on HN seem to do) does not require one to open source one's backend application.
  - dave_au 17y ago
    I'd like to hear more about why the GPL would be a roadblock. If you're writing code and see the GPL as a roadblock, then you can use a different license. If you want to use code that is under the license and see the license as a roadblock, no one is forcing you to use that code. It's either compelling enough code that you'll deal with the licensing, or it's not compelling enough and you'll have to roll your own. It's basically just a non-monetary price point then, isn't it? Am I missing something or is there some kind of assumption that people are entitled to other peoples work if they GPL it? (Not saying that you make the assumption personally, but that you might be assuming that is what is stopping others) I'm all thinking aloud / genuinely interested in what the issues are here.
    - greendestiny 17y ago
      In a perfect world where developers have chosen exactly the license they want then there is nothing really worth discussing. However I think a lot of times people put their software under the GPL because of its position in the open source world, and the rhetoric of the FSF. There is a continuum from having your code used in a completely non-commercial project to being used by Microsoft in some terrible software. The FSF seems to be still in a mindset where software was controlled by these large companies who are the enemy. I think we've moved on, and I would like the community to reflect that a bit better.
- bad_user 17y ago
  I don't think people hate the GPL per se. It's more about the way GPL is promoted ... in the name of freedom and all that shit, when in reality GPL is more likely to be used in instances where the company wants to sell commercial licenses. What I don't like about the GPL is that it limits the choice of license for derived works ... where "derived" has a very broad meaning (if your software uses a GPL component, and that GPL component has no replacement, no matter how trivial it would be to implement one, than it's a derived work). This is in contrast to .NET for example, which is proprietary and doesn't permit changes to the code base and it's not developed in the open ... but it doesn't restrict your choice of license. Another bad example ... Qt's licensing may have been good for Trolltech, but because of that Gnome / GTK+ happened. As a result there are more third party applications (both proprietary and open-source) written on top of GTK+ / Gnome, although it is an inferior technological choice. Qt got LGPL'ed (finally) but I think it's too little, too late (regarding the Linux desktop). The GPL (not talking about LGPL) is a good license if used for the right purpose. But it is promoted as being the backbone of software freedom, and looking unbiased at its current usage, that's just not true.

alanlinzer 17y ago

Do you even know what altruism is? It bothers me how easy people use this word. Do you really think open source programmers are "disinterested and selfless for the well-being of others"?! They want recognition for the contributions because it's in their self-interest to be noticed, respected and validated by their peers.

netsp 17y ago
That would satisfy many thoughtful people's definition of altruism.
andrewvc 17y ago
Some of us feel grateful for what the world of FOSS has given us and enjoy giving back. Given the condescending and crude tone of your comment it's no wonder such concepts are foreign to you.
- omouse 17y ago
  You have warped definitions for the words "condescending" and "crude".
- alanlinzer 17y ago
  It's an insult to assume people would rather work for your personal gain than their own.
  - netsp 17y ago
    How so?