7 ms·

Thanks for taking my quote/tweet/whatever out of context, Zed. I was replying to your comment "I find it funny that people cry it's not fair I use the GPL and u

by jnoller 17y ago

Thanks for taking my quote/tweet/whatever out of context, Zed. I was replying to your comment "I find it funny that people cry it's not fair I use the GPL and use their BSD software, but then _don't_ cry when a company uses their gear." Specifically; I was paraphrasing @mjmalone's comments yesterday where he and others were pointing out what they felt was an issue with this. I don't think I, or anyone else who has been discussing this is attacking you, or attempting to diminish the fact you have released Lamson at GPL. I think we all appreciate anyone releasing something as Free/Open Source software, period. However, we can lament the fact we can not use/extend (namely - import) your code to add to it without triggering the GPL requirements within our own code. For me personally, it's an easy choice - I push stuff out under MIT/Apache 2.0/etc and just don't touch/patch/extend things under the GPL. It's your choice, and that's what great about Free/Open source software, and no one is suggesting you, or I, or anyone give up that freedom. Additionally; some of us write software for a living, for companies who pay us money. Not all of them are these evil, soulless entities you seemingly despise. I, and many others have been lucky enough to work for companies who use open source software, and give back as well, in the form of released code, patches, etc. We don't "love" evil corporations - we simply work for those which are not evil (in our eyes) and we attempt to promote ethical open source behavior within those companies. Heck; some of us have even gotten to dedicate time to open source projects on company time. Even for those companies (ones with an open source culture), the GPL can become more of a pain to deal with, and can quickly outstrip the benefits of using that GPLed software rather than "using something else".

boris 17y ago
However, we can lament the fact we can not use/extend (namely - import) your code to add to it without triggering the GPL requirements within our own code. Zed's point is that the "BSD folks" seem to complain more when someone releases their code under the GPL than when a company releases this same code under a completely proprietary license. In case of the GPL'ed code you can at least study it, get some ideas, and perhaps provide your own BSD'ed implementation. In other words you complain more about people that give you something than about people that give you nothing. I do find this strange.
- mrkurt 17y ago
  I think it's a perception issue, and a bit of rivalry. Most companies that release proprietary, closed-source software don't even pretend it's "open" and "free". For quite a while, the GPL was the perceived pinnacle of "open" and "free". The problem is, it's decidedly less open and free for authors who prefer a more permissive license. Re-implementing code with another license is a massive gray area, btw. This is why reverse engineering groups go to great lengths to make sure the people working on things have never seen the licensed code they're attempting to emulate.
  - tolmasky 17y ago
    But here lies the whole point of (L)GPL. I would argue that one of the most important open source projects in use today is WebKit. It started as KHTML, moved to Apple as WebKit, then moved its way into Nokia (S60WebKit), moved its way into MobileSafari, and then moved into Chrome, and now a whole OS (Chrome OS), not to mention many other projects that use it. One of the big reasons it has spread so much and done so much good in the open source community is precisely because it is LGPL. Consider whether you think Apple, or Nokia, or any other company along that chain wouldn't have just closed sourced it at some point if it wasn't because it was specifically "copyleft".
    - philh 17y ago
      We don't know what would have happened if it had been BSD-licensed. Maybe Apple, Nokia and Google would have contributed any changes they make anyway, because it makes merging easier and any competitive advantage they have does not come from their rendering engine. Maybe more companies would have used it, possibly instead of licensing Opera. Maybe some of these would have contributed their changes back as well. Possibly the tradeoffs involved in BSD versus (L)GPL can be measured, but pointing out examples of successful/failed projects using one or the other is not helpful.
      - tolmasky 17y ago
        Of course we can never know for sure, but we can certainly draw very educated guesses and conclusions. For starters, the argument that "perhaps some" of them would have behaved the same is no where near as nice (in open source terms) as "absolutely all" behaved this way and will continue having to behave this way. We can also analyze the behaviors of some of these companies. Just look at Safari for example: the open sourcing stops precisely where the licensing requirements stop: the engine is open source but the browser itself is closed source. Apple has unquestionably contributed the most to this web engine, and they are unwilling to contribute any more beyond their legal requirements. Additionally the effect this has created in the web world is pretty powerful. Companies are now in a position where their choices are investing a tremendous amount of work in creating a new web engine or using the best existing web engine to be competitive but having to contribute all their changes back. This is particularly true in the mobile web space where WebKit is essentially the only engine that has proven itself capable of providing a desktop caliber experience. In terms of open source goals, there could be no better situation. You basically have to use an open source engine to be competitive, and the most competitive of these engines requires you to contribute back to the community in a space that is dominated by commercial investment.
adharmad 17y ago
Then why do not BSD folks change their license to: free and open for all except that no one can GPL the code. This will resolve the issue once and for all. But it will make BSD folks sound like hypocrites to the world.
- fhars 17y ago
  That is exactly how ipf found itself removed from OpenBSD and replaced with pf. The author tried to change the licence to "anything except GPL," which was reegarded as an inacceptable non-free license by the OpenBSD project.
- apotheon 17y ago
  That kinda seems to be the point: the GPL folks come off as hypocritical form the BSD folks' point of view, and the BSD folks are unwilling to be that hypocritical about it.
calambrac 17y ago
Dude, come on. You're actively ignoring his point, which is that that it makes no sense to bitch about the viral nature of the GPL and then complain (sorry, lament) when a project doesn't choose to use a BSD license because of what you're then prevented from doing. That's just a lame attempt to substitute a legal requirement with a social one. And just because he didn't surround your tweet with its full context, that doesn't mean he misused it. He responded to the exact point you made. Funny that this is basically an analogue of the point he's making about the license: you say something in public and then lament that someone goes off and uses it in a way you didn't want them to.
- jnoller 17y ago
  No; you see I don't care what license he uses. No one has been attacking him, and ultimately, what license he chooses is the license he chooses. Done. Disagreement with a position is not bitching, nor is it attacking.
  - calambrac 17y ago
    you see I don't care what license he uses. You said that you 'lament' that you can't use his code - how could you expect anyone to interpret that as something other than caring about the license that's preventing you from doing so? No one has been attacking him That's not true, a lot of people have been attacking him, but if you read my comment again, you should hopefully realize I never accused you of being one of them. I accused you of ignoring his point and of needlessly whining about how he used your tweet.

by jnoller 17y ago

boris 17y ago

However, we can lament the fact we can not use/extend (namely - import) your code to add to it without triggering the GPL requirements within our own code. Zed's point is that the "BSD folks" seem to complain more when someone releases their code under the GPL than when a company releases this same code under a completely proprietary license. In case of the GPL'ed code you can at least study it, get some ideas, and perhaps provide your own BSD'ed implementation. In other words you complain more about people that give you something than about people that give you nothing. I do find this strange.

mrkurt 17y ago
I think it's a perception issue, and a bit of rivalry. Most companies that release proprietary, closed-source software don't even pretend it's "open" and "free". For quite a while, the GPL was the perceived pinnacle of "open" and "free". The problem is, it's decidedly less open and free for authors who prefer a more permissive license. Re-implementing code with another license is a massive gray area, btw. This is why reverse engineering groups go to great lengths to make sure the people working on things have never seen the licensed code they're attempting to emulate.
- tolmasky 17y ago
  But here lies the whole point of (L)GPL. I would argue that one of the most important open source projects in use today is WebKit. It started as KHTML, moved to Apple as WebKit, then moved its way into Nokia (S60WebKit), moved its way into MobileSafari, and then moved into Chrome, and now a whole OS (Chrome OS), not to mention many other projects that use it. One of the big reasons it has spread so much and done so much good in the open source community is precisely because it is LGPL. Consider whether you think Apple, or Nokia, or any other company along that chain wouldn't have just closed sourced it at some point if it wasn't because it was specifically "copyleft".
  - philh 17y ago
    We don't know what would have happened if it had been BSD-licensed. Maybe Apple, Nokia and Google would have contributed any changes they make anyway, because it makes merging easier and any competitive advantage they have does not come from their rendering engine. Maybe more companies would have used it, possibly instead of licensing Opera. Maybe some of these would have contributed their changes back as well. Possibly the tradeoffs involved in BSD versus (L)GPL can be measured, but pointing out examples of successful/failed projects using one or the other is not helpful.
    - tolmasky 17y ago
      Of course we can never know for sure, but we can certainly draw very educated guesses and conclusions. For starters, the argument that "perhaps some" of them would have behaved the same is no where near as nice (in open source terms) as "absolutely all" behaved this way and will continue having to behave this way. We can also analyze the behaviors of some of these companies. Just look at Safari for example: the open sourcing stops precisely where the licensing requirements stop: the engine is open source but the browser itself is closed source. Apple has unquestionably contributed the most to this web engine, and they are unwilling to contribute any more beyond their legal requirements. Additionally the effect this has created in the web world is pretty powerful. Companies are now in a position where their choices are investing a tremendous amount of work in creating a new web engine or using the best existing web engine to be competitive but having to contribute all their changes back. This is particularly true in the mobile web space where WebKit is essentially the only engine that has proven itself capable of providing a desktop caliber experience. In terms of open source goals, there could be no better situation. You basically have to use an open source engine to be competitive, and the most competitive of these engines requires you to contribute back to the community in a space that is dominated by commercial investment.

adharmad 17y ago

Then why do not BSD folks change their license to: free and open for all except that no one can GPL the code. This will resolve the issue once and for all. But it will make BSD folks sound like hypocrites to the world.

fhars 17y ago
That is exactly how ipf found itself removed from OpenBSD and replaced with pf. The author tried to change the licence to "anything except GPL," which was reegarded as an inacceptable non-free license by the OpenBSD project.
apotheon 17y ago
That kinda seems to be the point: the GPL folks come off as hypocritical form the BSD folks' point of view, and the BSD folks are unwilling to be that hypocritical about it.

calambrac 17y ago

Dude, come on. You're actively ignoring his point, which is that that it makes no sense to bitch about the viral nature of the GPL and then complain (sorry, lament) when a project doesn't choose to use a BSD license because of what you're then prevented from doing. That's just a lame attempt to substitute a legal requirement with a social one. And just because he didn't surround your tweet with its full context, that doesn't mean he misused it. He responded to the exact point you made. Funny that this is basically an analogue of the point he's making about the license: you say something in public and then lament that someone goes off and uses it in a way you didn't want them to.

jnoller 17y ago
No; you see I don't care what license he uses. No one has been attacking him, and ultimately, what license he chooses is the license he chooses. Done. Disagreement with a position is not bitching, nor is it attacking.
- calambrac 17y ago
  you see I don't care what license he uses. You said that you 'lament' that you can't use his code - how could you expect anyone to interpret that as something other than caring about the license that's preventing you from doing so? No one has been attacking him That's not true, a lot of people have been attacking him, but if you read my comment again, you should hopefully realize I never accused you of being one of them. I accused you of ignoring his point and of needlessly whining about how he used your tweet.