7 ms·

Great news, but they really should have picked GPLv3+ or GPLv2+.

binarycrusader 13y ago
Actually, it's a very good thing they didn't pick GPLv3+, or have you forgotten what license the Linux kernel is under? The Linux kernel is also GPLv2 (not +); I completely agree with the '+' thing as that leaves the FSF in control of the license (effectively).
- davexunit 13y ago
  It's unfortunate that the kernel Linux is not GPLv3, either.
  - binarycrusader 13y ago
    No, it really isn't unfortunate -- and Linus explained why: https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161 https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161
    - hdevalence 13y ago
      The parent poster expressed a personal opinion. Your reply amounts to "Your opinion differs from Linus's opinion, and is therefore wrong." There are many reasons why one might wish that Linux was GPLv3: for instance, one might think that the "anti-Tivoisation" provisions are important. Linus obviously doesn't share this point of view; that doesn't make it an invalid point of view to have.
      - bronson 13y ago
        The parent poster expressed a blanket statement. Because there's no subject (or, because it's implicit that the subject is "everyone") they are an invitation for discussion.
      - Xylakant 13y ago
        Well, Linus is pretty succinct why the "It's a shame or not" discussion is not a matter of discussion, but that the matter is decided. > And please, when you join that fight, use your _own_ copyrights. Not somebody elses. I absolutely hate how the FSF has tried to use my code as a weapon, just because I decided that their license was good. and about having a poll deciding the matter > Here's a poll for you: > - go write your own kernel > - poll which one is more popular I very often dislike Linus style of discussion, but that one was pretty clear and straightforward.
        angersock 13y ago
        Normally the "Write a kernel and come back when you've won" is a bullshit argument, but the GNU Hurd kind of predates Linux, and would be an acceptable candidate to that argument...and has lost.
        Xylakant 13y ago
        > Normally the "Write a kernel and come back when you've won" is a bullshit argument Actually, I don't think it's a bullshit argument in cases where the fundamentals are here: Somebody calls a vote on the license of code that was largely written by the the other person. That other person is totally entitled to say "Hey, go, vote on the license of your piece of code and not on mine."
      - binarycrusader 13y ago
        Call me silly, but I believe the primary and original author of a project or other creative work has the right to establish what is "right" or "wrong" for their project unless they otherwise waived that right.
        _delirium 13y ago
        Once a project has become a large collaborative project, I don't believe the original author remains the sole arbiter of what's good for the project. Their opinion should be given some weight, but whatever their opinion is doesn't automatically decide what's right for the project.
        binarycrusader 13y ago
        Which is why I said they had the right to "establish". And you can't seriously convince me for a moment that the vast majority of the Linux community doesn't agree with Linus. Every single kernel contributor must at least feel partially the same way, after all, they agreed to contribute under the existing license terms which (as Linus pointed out) can effectively never be changed.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        > And you can't seriously convince me for a moment that the vast majority of the Linux community doesn't agree with Linus. You can't seriously convince me for a moment that the vast majority of the Linux community doesn't disagree with Linus. Your task now should be obvious: Come up with an agreed-upon definition of "the Linux community", and run a valid survey. > Every single kernel contributor must at least feel partially the same way, after all, they agreed to contribute under the existing license terms which (as Linus pointed out) can effectively never be changed. You've established nothing more than that the kernel contributors are willing to work within that framework, not that they feel the same as Linus does.
        binarycrusader 13y ago
      - mintplant 13y ago
        > Your reply amounts to "Your opinion differs from Linus's opinion, and is therefore wrong." More like: "Someone other respected person believes otherwise, and here is their justification. This other position may be a better one, for the reasons they give."
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
aubonpain 13y ago
I disagree, I'd much rather see it under a BSD-style license than GPL.
- drdaeman 13y ago
  Don't we have enough proprietary builds of FLOSS projects? Every time I look at Android phone or TV or a router I regret that BSD/MIT/Apache is so popular. Those devices run tivoized proprietary builds of what consists mostly of free software, but builds are shitty or just restricted (want a proper firewall? never mind it's there go buy next-tier device). And users can't do anything about that. Users and GPLv3 deserve more love. They're already screwed by everyone and their pet code monkeys.
  - binarycrusader 13y ago
    The more restrictive your licensing, the less likely many developers are to use it now. Although I'd readily admit that applies to some industries more than others. As an example, John Carmack (formerly of ID Software) recently posted this on twitter: GPL never did really do anything for game code, and I do wonder whether it was a fundamental cultural incompatibility. https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/434005981379309568 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/434005981379309568 When I was merely a user of free software, I too believed as others did, that a more restrictive (or "stronger" if your prefer) copy-left license was better. However, the more years I've spent in the software industry, the more my opinion has varied. I think it ultimately comes down to who the primary "users" of your code are. If it's an application, it's probably ok to use more restrictive licensing. If it's a library, or code that's in any way intended to be reused by others more generally, the licensing should have very few restrictions if you want to encourage wide usage and to discourage others from duplicating the work.
    - shuzchen 13y ago
      I really liked the criteria that http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html outlines regarding lgpl or not. It's the same criteria I use to decide whether to use a strong copyleft license or not: >The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library. >This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem for them, only for us. >However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different color. The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline.

Actually, it's a very good thing they didn't pick GPLv3+, or have you forgotten what license the Linux kernel is under? The Linux kernel is also GPLv2 (not +); I completely agree with the '+' thing as that leaves the FSF in control of the license (effectively).

davexunit 13y ago
It's unfortunate that the kernel Linux is not GPLv3, either.
- binarycrusader 13y ago
  No, it really isn't unfortunate -- and Linus explained why: https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161 https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161
  - hdevalence 13y ago
    The parent poster expressed a personal opinion. Your reply amounts to "Your opinion differs from Linus's opinion, and is therefore wrong." There are many reasons why one might wish that Linux was GPLv3: for instance, one might think that the "anti-Tivoisation" provisions are important. Linus obviously doesn't share this point of view; that doesn't make it an invalid point of view to have.
    - bronson 13y ago
      The parent poster expressed a blanket statement. Because there's no subject (or, because it's implicit that the subject is "everyone") they are an invitation for discussion.
    - Xylakant 13y ago
      Well, Linus is pretty succinct why the "It's a shame or not" discussion is not a matter of discussion, but that the matter is decided. > And please, when you join that fight, use your _own_ copyrights. Not somebody elses. I absolutely hate how the FSF has tried to use my code as a weapon, just because I decided that their license was good. and about having a poll deciding the matter > Here's a poll for you: > - go write your own kernel > - poll which one is more popular I very often dislike Linus style of discussion, but that one was pretty clear and straightforward.
      - angersock 13y ago
        Normally the "Write a kernel and come back when you've won" is a bullshit argument, but the GNU Hurd kind of predates Linux, and would be an acceptable candidate to that argument...and has lost.
        Xylakant 13y ago
        > Normally the "Write a kernel and come back when you've won" is a bullshit argument Actually, I don't think it's a bullshit argument in cases where the fundamentals are here: Somebody calls a vote on the license of code that was largely written by the the other person. That other person is totally entitled to say "Hey, go, vote on the license of your piece of code and not on mine."
    - binarycrusader 13y ago
      Call me silly, but I believe the primary and original author of a project or other creative work has the right to establish what is "right" or "wrong" for their project unless they otherwise waived that right.
      - _delirium 13y ago
        Once a project has become a large collaborative project, I don't believe the original author remains the sole arbiter of what's good for the project. Their opinion should be given some weight, but whatever their opinion is doesn't automatically decide what's right for the project.
        binarycrusader 13y ago
        Which is why I said they had the right to "establish". And you can't seriously convince me for a moment that the vast majority of the Linux community doesn't agree with Linus. Every single kernel contributor must at least feel partially the same way, after all, they agreed to contribute under the existing license terms which (as Linus pointed out) can effectively never be changed.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        > And you can't seriously convince me for a moment that the vast majority of the Linux community doesn't agree with Linus. You can't seriously convince me for a moment that the vast majority of the Linux community doesn't disagree with Linus. Your task now should be obvious: Come up with an agreed-upon definition of "the Linux community", and run a valid survey. > Every single kernel contributor must at least feel partially the same way, after all, they agreed to contribute under the existing license terms which (as Linus pointed out) can effectively never be changed. You've established nothing more than that the kernel contributors are willing to work within that framework, not that they feel the same as Linus does.
        binarycrusader 13y ago
    - mintplant 13y ago
      > Your reply amounts to "Your opinion differs from Linus's opinion, and is therefore wrong." More like: "Someone other respected person believes otherwise, and here is their justification. This other position may be a better one, for the reasons they give."
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

aubonpain 13y ago

I disagree, I'd much rather see it under a BSD-style license than GPL.

drdaeman 13y ago
Don't we have enough proprietary builds of FLOSS projects? Every time I look at Android phone or TV or a router I regret that BSD/MIT/Apache is so popular. Those devices run tivoized proprietary builds of what consists mostly of free software, but builds are shitty or just restricted (want a proper firewall? never mind it's there go buy next-tier device). And users can't do anything about that. Users and GPLv3 deserve more love. They're already screwed by everyone and their pet code monkeys.
- binarycrusader 13y ago
  The more restrictive your licensing, the less likely many developers are to use it now. Although I'd readily admit that applies to some industries more than others. As an example, John Carmack (formerly of ID Software) recently posted this on twitter: GPL never did really do anything for game code, and I do wonder whether it was a fundamental cultural incompatibility. https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/434005981379309568 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/434005981379309568 When I was merely a user of free software, I too believed as others did, that a more restrictive (or "stronger" if your prefer) copy-left license was better. However, the more years I've spent in the software industry, the more my opinion has varied. I think it ultimately comes down to who the primary "users" of your code are. If it's an application, it's probably ok to use more restrictive licensing. If it's a library, or code that's in any way intended to be reused by others more generally, the licensing should have very few restrictions if you want to encourage wide usage and to discourage others from duplicating the work.
  - shuzchen 13y ago
    I really liked the criteria that http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html outlines regarding lgpl or not. It's the same criteria I use to decide whether to use a strong copyleft license or not: >The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library. >This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem for them, only for us. >However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different color. The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline.