8 ms·

The irony of what's happening here, that dogmatism about a belief is causing an inferior solution to be used, is infuriating and one of the reasons people have

The irony of what's happening here, that dogmatism about a belief is causing an inferior solution to be used, is infuriating and one of the reasons people have such a problem with dogmatic personalities like rms. It's technically illegal to use a better solution because of something as relatively unimportant as a license. Think of it like a Maslov's hierarchy - having strong security is way more important to most people than having a proper copyleft license. But instead of being pragmatic, we're stuck with a ridiculously dogmatic solution that ends up harming way more than the ill it was trying to cure. It reminds me a lot of environmentalists going crazy to ban nuclear power in the 70s before we had as clear a grasp on the impact of dumping carbon dioxide into the air.

chimeracoder 13y ago
> The irony of what's happening here, that dogmatism about a belief is causing an inferior solution to be used, is infuriating and one of the reasons people have such a problem with dogmatic personalities like rms. It's technically illegal to use a better solution because of something as relatively unimportant as a license. Why do you jump to blame the GPL and rms, when one could just as easily fault the OpenSSL authors for using the 4-clause BSD instead of the far more common 3-clause? > It's technically illegal to use a better solution because of something as relatively unimportant as a license. No, it is technically illegal to distribute compiled binaries that use OpenSSL, because the OpenSSL authors wanted to retain the advertising privileges. But it is not illegal to use the software as long as it is distributed in source and compiled by the end user. I would not call licensing unimportant. As long as software is copyrightable, licensing terms are highly important.
- pierrebai 13y ago
  The reason the GPL is annoying is that free license with an advertizing clause have existed for a very long time and are actually widely used. A quick look at the about box of various software will usually show you a long list of mandatory acknowledgements for various open source licenses. The problem is that the GPL willingly refuses to permit advertizing clauses. Is there a congent argument about why an advertizing clause is a limitation of freedom? The GPL is more often than other free licenses putting restirctions on usage of diversely licensed software. It is an impediment. And, as we see, it has real-world consequences. There is more risk for freedom using bad software security than wielding to innocuous clauses.
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    > The problem is that the GPL willingly refuses to permit advertizing clauses. Is there a congent argument about why an advertizing clause is a limitation of freedom The advertising clause is not a limitation on freedom. The 4-clause BSD license is a free software license; it just happens not to be compatible with the GPL (not all free software licenses are). The reasons for this are very practical: not only does it place additional restrictions on the software (which is not permitted by the GPL), but if multiple 4-clause BSD projects are used, each project requires its own separate advertising statement (the 4-clause license does not permit combining these into a single sentence): https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html > The reason the GPL is annoying is that free license with an advertizing clause have existed for a very long time and are actually widely used. Most modern projects using permissive licenses use 3-clause BSD, MIT/X11, or Apache, all of which are compatible with the GPL. In this day and age, choosing a 4-clause BSD license is a fairly conscious decision to make the project incompatible with the GPL.
    - justin66 13y ago
      > In this day and age, choosing a 4-clause BSD license is a fairly conscious decision to make the project incompatible with the GPL. Complaining about this seems a bit strange, since GPL is deliberately incompatible with everything else when it comes to sharing. OpenSSL's license, although kooky, is freer than the GPL in terms of who can use the stuff covered by it.
      - chimeracoder 13y ago
        > Complaining about this seems a bit strange, For the record, I'm not complaining. I'm just saying that it's unfair to blame the incompatibility solely on the GPL (as OP seemed to be), when the developer is the one who chooses the license for their software. (And I presume the OpenSSL authors are experienced enough to be familiar with the compatibility differences between the 3-clause vs. 4-clause BSD license). > OpenSSL's license, although kooky, is freer than the GPL in terms of who can use the stuff covered by it. No, both are equally free. Both of them respect the four freedoms, so they are both free licenses. (The 4-clause BSD is arguably more permissive, but on the other hand, the GPL permits one to advertise the software without any restrictions, so it really depends on which of those two one values more. Generally the copyleft clause is what people care about more than advertising, but it's important to note both).
- maxlybbert 13y ago
  I believe the OpenSSL team uses the 4 clause BSD license because they rely on SSLeay, which uses the 4 clause license. And if they have to advertise the SSLeay name, they might as well advertise the OpenSSL name as well. The thing is, relicensing isn't likely to happen any time soon, regardless of what RMS says.
  - bbanyc 13y ago
    To be precise, SSLeay was discontinued when its authors were hired by RSA. They're now under non-competes and couldn't change the license if they wanted to.
    - blueskin_ 13y ago
      Noncompetes are generally illegal and get thrown out if it ever goes to court, although I understand why people don't want the hassle.
    - anon4 13y ago
      How would a noncompete agreement stop them from relicensing a work they did before signing the agreement?
dec0dedab0de 13y ago
The irony of what's happening here, that dogmatism about a belief is causing an inferior solution to be used How is that irony? I Don't think rms or anyone who pushes for Copyleft does so because they believe it always results in a superior solution.
- dfc 13y ago
  I had the same response. Whenever I see "irony/ironic" I make a conscientious effort to not use the dictionary definition and give the author a lot of semantic leeway. After I read the comment for the third time I still could not identify any irony.
Flimm 13y ago
I think the real lesson here is not to write your own license but to use well-known ones. There are lots of permissive licenses that are also compatible with the GPL.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  4-clause BSD is actually the original BSD license, even though it's not very common nowadays. According to wikipedia, it was first used in 1990 or before, so roundabout the same time as the GPL v1 (1989). It's certainly not self-written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_.28original_.22BSD_License.22.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_...
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    The principle of "pick from among the most common" still holds, though, of which drafting your own license is the most extreme violation.
herge 13y ago
Man, if you thought using GPL software is painful now, you should have tried things 20 years ago.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Most software was pretty painful in 1994...
akjj 13y ago
It's not dogmatism. Debian just a conservative interpretation of the law the conditions of the GPL. It's fair to point out that Debian's interpretation doesn't seem to be very widely held outside the project, but believing "we should obey the law" doesn't count as dogmatism.
dfc 13y ago
Where is the irony? Even if I substitute Alanis Morissette's definition for the dictionary definition I can not identify any irony. Technical superiority was never the primary goal of the Free Software Movement. I also don't understand the environmental anecdote. That seems less about dogma and more about imperfect scientific knowledge. Were the environmentalists opposing nuclear energy on principle or because at the time the evidence made nuclear power look unsafe and detrimental to the health of the environment? Rev. Dr. King had this to say about pragmatism: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...
vacri 13y ago
The irony is actually that GnuTLS is panned for 'not doing it right' in the article, and here you are panning Debian for 'doing it right' when it comes to licensing. Debian is following licenses as they should be followed and not cutting corners.
belorn 13y ago
Why aren't post such as parent comment simply killed by the moderators? There are a BSD vs GPL discussion about once every week on HN. Out of those several hundred threads and thousands comments, has a single users been convinced about the preference of either license type? Has a single person said "o, sorry, I will now change my opinion and use your license of choice because your arguments is so good". Hate or love RMS, but can you keep it in your pants and do it elsewhere?
- pg_is_a_butt 13y ago
  you're an ignorant hypocrite. the same plea to stop is made over and over on deaf ears. you put a form with a reply button on the internet... you just asked for SHIT. you're going to get SHIT. that is how the internet works. all input is SHIT. PG IS A BUTT

chimeracoder 13y ago

> The irony of what's happening here, that dogmatism about a belief is causing an inferior solution to be used, is infuriating and one of the reasons people have such a problem with dogmatic personalities like rms. It's technically illegal to use a better solution because of something as relatively unimportant as a license. Why do you jump to blame the GPL and rms, when one could just as easily fault the OpenSSL authors for using the 4-clause BSD instead of the far more common 3-clause? > It's technically illegal to use a better solution because of something as relatively unimportant as a license. No, it is technically illegal to distribute compiled binaries that use OpenSSL, because the OpenSSL authors wanted to retain the advertising privileges. But it is not illegal to use the software as long as it is distributed in source and compiled by the end user. I would not call licensing unimportant. As long as software is copyrightable, licensing terms are highly important.

pierrebai 13y ago
The reason the GPL is annoying is that free license with an advertizing clause have existed for a very long time and are actually widely used. A quick look at the about box of various software will usually show you a long list of mandatory acknowledgements for various open source licenses. The problem is that the GPL willingly refuses to permit advertizing clauses. Is there a congent argument about why an advertizing clause is a limitation of freedom? The GPL is more often than other free licenses putting restirctions on usage of diversely licensed software. It is an impediment. And, as we see, it has real-world consequences. There is more risk for freedom using bad software security than wielding to innocuous clauses.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  > The problem is that the GPL willingly refuses to permit advertizing clauses. Is there a congent argument about why an advertizing clause is a limitation of freedom The advertising clause is not a limitation on freedom. The 4-clause BSD license is a free software license; it just happens not to be compatible with the GPL (not all free software licenses are). The reasons for this are very practical: not only does it place additional restrictions on the software (which is not permitted by the GPL), but if multiple 4-clause BSD projects are used, each project requires its own separate advertising statement (the 4-clause license does not permit combining these into a single sentence): https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html > The reason the GPL is annoying is that free license with an advertizing clause have existed for a very long time and are actually widely used. Most modern projects using permissive licenses use 3-clause BSD, MIT/X11, or Apache, all of which are compatible with the GPL. In this day and age, choosing a 4-clause BSD license is a fairly conscious decision to make the project incompatible with the GPL.
  - justin66 13y ago
    > In this day and age, choosing a 4-clause BSD license is a fairly conscious decision to make the project incompatible with the GPL. Complaining about this seems a bit strange, since GPL is deliberately incompatible with everything else when it comes to sharing. OpenSSL's license, although kooky, is freer than the GPL in terms of who can use the stuff covered by it.
    - chimeracoder 13y ago
      > Complaining about this seems a bit strange, For the record, I'm not complaining. I'm just saying that it's unfair to blame the incompatibility solely on the GPL (as OP seemed to be), when the developer is the one who chooses the license for their software. (And I presume the OpenSSL authors are experienced enough to be familiar with the compatibility differences between the 3-clause vs. 4-clause BSD license). > OpenSSL's license, although kooky, is freer than the GPL in terms of who can use the stuff covered by it. No, both are equally free. Both of them respect the four freedoms, so they are both free licenses. (The 4-clause BSD is arguably more permissive, but on the other hand, the GPL permits one to advertise the software without any restrictions, so it really depends on which of those two one values more. Generally the copyleft clause is what people care about more than advertising, but it's important to note both).
maxlybbert 13y ago
I believe the OpenSSL team uses the 4 clause BSD license because they rely on SSLeay, which uses the 4 clause license. And if they have to advertise the SSLeay name, they might as well advertise the OpenSSL name as well. The thing is, relicensing isn't likely to happen any time soon, regardless of what RMS says.
- bbanyc 13y ago
  To be precise, SSLeay was discontinued when its authors were hired by RSA. They're now under non-competes and couldn't change the license if they wanted to.
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    Noncompetes are generally illegal and get thrown out if it ever goes to court, although I understand why people don't want the hassle.
  - anon4 13y ago
    How would a noncompete agreement stop them from relicensing a work they did before signing the agreement?

dec0dedab0de 13y ago

The irony of what's happening here, that dogmatism about a belief is causing an inferior solution to be used How is that irony? I Don't think rms or anyone who pushes for Copyleft does so because they believe it always results in a superior solution.

dfc 13y ago
I had the same response. Whenever I see "irony/ironic" I make a conscientious effort to not use the dictionary definition and give the author a lot of semantic leeway. After I read the comment for the third time I still could not identify any irony.

Flimm 13y ago

I think the real lesson here is not to write your own license but to use well-known ones. There are lots of permissive licenses that are also compatible with the GPL.

Xylakant 13y ago
4-clause BSD is actually the original BSD license, even though it's not very common nowadays. According to wikipedia, it was first used in 1990 or before, so roundabout the same time as the GPL v1 (1989). It's certainly not self-written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_.28original_.22BSD_License.22.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_...
- dllthomas 13y ago
  The principle of "pick from among the most common" still holds, though, of which drafting your own license is the most extreme violation.

herge 13y ago

Man, if you thought using GPL software is painful now, you should have tried things 20 years ago.

dllthomas 13y ago
Most software was pretty painful in 1994...

akjj 13y ago

It's not dogmatism. Debian just a conservative interpretation of the law the conditions of the GPL. It's fair to point out that Debian's interpretation doesn't seem to be very widely held outside the project, but believing "we should obey the law" doesn't count as dogmatism.

dfc 13y ago

Where is the irony? Even if I substitute Alanis Morissette's definition for the dictionary definition I can not identify any irony. Technical superiority was never the primary goal of the Free Software Movement. I also don't understand the environmental anecdote. That seems less about dogma and more about imperfect scientific knowledge. Were the environmentalists opposing nuclear energy on principle or because at the time the evidence made nuclear power look unsafe and detrimental to the health of the environment? Rev. Dr. King had this to say about pragmatism: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...

vacri 13y ago

The irony is actually that GnuTLS is panned for 'not doing it right' in the article, and here you are panning Debian for 'doing it right' when it comes to licensing. Debian is following licenses as they should be followed and not cutting corners.

belorn 13y ago

Why aren't post such as parent comment simply killed by the moderators? There are a BSD vs GPL discussion about once every week on HN. Out of those several hundred threads and thousands comments, has a single users been convinced about the preference of either license type? Has a single person said "o, sorry, I will now change my opinion and use your license of choice because your arguments is so good". Hate or love RMS, but can you keep it in your pants and do it elsewhere?

pg_is_a_butt 13y ago
you're an ignorant hypocrite. the same plea to stop is made over and over on deaf ears. you put a form with a reply button on the internet... you just asked for SHIT. you're going to get SHIT. that is how the internet works. all input is SHIT. PG IS A BUTT