7 ms·

I don't use GPL libraries because of the tyrannical copy-left clause. If I want to GPL mine, then I'll make that choice. But I won't use a single library that'l

by trebor 12y ago

I don't use GPL libraries because of the tyrannical copy-left clause. If I want to GPL mine, then I'll make that choice. But I won't use a single library that'll force me to choose GPL—I'll just write/find a replacement. So go ahead, make your library GPL instead of LGPL/MIT/BSD/MPL/APL/ETC and it'll sit unused and ignored (for the most part). I also really appreciate what morbius wrote in this same thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7757677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7757677

davexunit 12y ago
> tyrannical copy-left clause Do you believe that proprietary software licenses are tyrannical as well?
- fleitz 12y ago
  Not really, most proprietary software licenses don't interfere with the ways in which I prefer to release software to clients. Freedom is all about what you want to do, the problem is that GPL developers and developers who sell things to clients have different objectives for what they want to do. Likewise users of paid for software and users of GPL software have very different expectations of the software, GPL users tend to want to modify the code, and paid for software users want the software to work, but don't want to modify it. So for a GPL developer GPL code is very free, for a non-GPL developer it's not very free.
  - mbreese 12y ago
    To continue with that line of thought... For non-GPL developers, GPL code can even be more expensive than the cost of a proprietary library.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
    Well, but using your needs as the defining criteria for freedom is not particularly universal, is it? If a customer of mine requires that I provide them with the ability to use and modify the system I build for them in any way they want, proprietary licenses are quite "tyrannical" (though I wouldn't really use that word), whereas GPL gives me the freedom to do what I want/need to do. Which also seems to highlight a possible confusion on your part, that somehow "paid for software" is the opposite of "GPL software". When I sell software, customers tend to want to be able to modify it, or to have the ability to have others implement modifications for them. And that works both with proprietary code as well as with GPLed code: It's no problem at all to sell code under a proprietary license that allows modifications for own use, but it's also no problem at all to sell code under the GPL, which also allows modifications, and at the same time allows me to build on GPLed code. Also, I don't think terms such as "GPL developer" make much sense. There just is code out there that you can use under different licenses, some of which are incompatible, and for a given project, you have to take care to select components that are compatible technically as well as legally, both between them and with the requirements of the project--and in particular, there isn't really anything all _that_ special about the GPL, as you cannot include proprietary code in a project when the license is not compatible with the customer's requirements either.
  - davexunit 12y ago
    > Not really, most proprietary software licenses don't interfere with the ways in which I prefer to release software to clients. So, you value developer freedom, but not user freedom. Copylefted software is "tyrannical" to you because it prevents you from using the software to build proprietary software. >GPL users tend to want to modify the code Well, some of us modify some of the source code. But I use most free software unmodified. Free software isn't merely to satisfy my penchant for hacking, but to give me the freedom to have control over my computing and share with my neighbors. >paid for software Free software is about freedom, not price. Software can be both free and "paid for".
    - fleitz 12y ago
      Yes, copylefted software is "tyrannical" to you because it prevents you from using the software to build proprietary software, your powers reading comprehension astound me.
phillmv 12y ago
Tyranny is a strong word for "please only use this free code in the ways that I have outlined".
- eridius 12y ago
  It's Tyranny because the express goal of the GPL is to force all software to be free and open source. It's one thing to just say "my library has restrictions, please obey them", but the GPL is designed to try to infect as much of the software world as it possibly can, forcing via legal measures other software to catch its copyleft virus.
  - davexunit 12y ago
    >the express goal of the GPL is to force all software to be free The GPL does not force software to be free. It is not viral. Please stop using such dishonest language. The GPL will only be a part of software project if you choose to use it. It doesn't invite itself in.
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    Because using coercion in the interest of "freedom" always works out so well.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
      What is your definition of "coercion" that you are using here?
      - stcredzero 12y ago
        The same sense that the FSF uses coercion when they describe participation in closed-source.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
    Given the analogy you are using, do I understand it correctly that software can "catch" GPL (as in being required to be released under the GPL, I suppose?) without a deliberate decision of its developers to include GPL licensed code into their codebase? Could you explain how that works? Also, would you use the same language to describe typical proprietary licenses? After all, most of those would also prevent me from publishing any codebase incorporating any code I obtained under such a license as free software--or in your terminology, the codebase would be "infected" by the proprietary license which forces my software to also "catch a proprietary license"? I'm not quite sure I understand your analogy, though ...
lumberjack 12y ago
I don't understand this viewpoint of supposed "tyranny". I can understand why one would publish under MIT/BSD because they think that a developer is entitled to close source their software even if it builds onto free software. But then if you support such freedom for the developer why isn't a developer entitled to publish under GPL because its their software and they can do whatever they want with it. It seems like this viewpoint is implicitly saying that close sourcing the code is totally fine, but publishing the code under GPL isn't. That does not make sense to me.
- trebor 12y ago
  There is no supposition about tyranny here. It used to be that the GPLv2 allowed use of libraries in applications so long as any adjustments to the library contributed back to the project. This was fair and reasonable, even when working on a commercial project. With GPLv3 you can no longer use GPL software, even as a library, in non-GPL software. [1] There's one exception, but it doesn't really apply to PHP libraries/applications (because there's no distinction between either in PHP; it's all source code). [2] I never said that a developer isn't entitled to their choice of license. In fact, I fully support and encourage that. But choosing GPLv3 and then expecting people to use the library is a conflict of terms. I have equal rights to yours over how I license my code—at least until I pick the GPL. [2] So, attempting to dictate what license I use when writing my code by including a "viral" copy-left clause in your license is tyrannical and arrogant. I do have to eat. So if my only choices are GPL licensed libraries and a project we can't release source for, all you GPL-only guys make me waste my time writing a proprietary library. I absolutely resent the copy-left. And I won't ever use the GPL because I won't inflict such terms upon anyone, commercial or open-source users of my libraries or software. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL [2]: Bear in mind that my day-job is writing PHP code, and all distribution of libraries and software is in source form. The GPLv3 has special exceptions for statically linked languages loading the library dynamically, but in PHP the whole application is (arguably) in source form and always loaded dynamically.
  - dllthomas 12y ago

by trebor 12y ago

davexunit 12y ago

> tyrannical copy-left clause Do you believe that proprietary software licenses are tyrannical as well?

fleitz 12y ago
Not really, most proprietary software licenses don't interfere with the ways in which I prefer to release software to clients. Freedom is all about what you want to do, the problem is that GPL developers and developers who sell things to clients have different objectives for what they want to do. Likewise users of paid for software and users of GPL software have very different expectations of the software, GPL users tend to want to modify the code, and paid for software users want the software to work, but don't want to modify it. So for a GPL developer GPL code is very free, for a non-GPL developer it's not very free.
- mbreese 12y ago
  To continue with that line of thought... For non-GPL developers, GPL code can even be more expensive than the cost of a proprietary library.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
  Well, but using your needs as the defining criteria for freedom is not particularly universal, is it? If a customer of mine requires that I provide them with the ability to use and modify the system I build for them in any way they want, proprietary licenses are quite "tyrannical" (though I wouldn't really use that word), whereas GPL gives me the freedom to do what I want/need to do. Which also seems to highlight a possible confusion on your part, that somehow "paid for software" is the opposite of "GPL software". When I sell software, customers tend to want to be able to modify it, or to have the ability to have others implement modifications for them. And that works both with proprietary code as well as with GPLed code: It's no problem at all to sell code under a proprietary license that allows modifications for own use, but it's also no problem at all to sell code under the GPL, which also allows modifications, and at the same time allows me to build on GPLed code. Also, I don't think terms such as "GPL developer" make much sense. There just is code out there that you can use under different licenses, some of which are incompatible, and for a given project, you have to take care to select components that are compatible technically as well as legally, both between them and with the requirements of the project--and in particular, there isn't really anything all _that_ special about the GPL, as you cannot include proprietary code in a project when the license is not compatible with the customer's requirements either.
- davexunit 12y ago
  > Not really, most proprietary software licenses don't interfere with the ways in which I prefer to release software to clients. So, you value developer freedom, but not user freedom. Copylefted software is "tyrannical" to you because it prevents you from using the software to build proprietary software. >GPL users tend to want to modify the code Well, some of us modify some of the source code. But I use most free software unmodified. Free software isn't merely to satisfy my penchant for hacking, but to give me the freedom to have control over my computing and share with my neighbors. >paid for software Free software is about freedom, not price. Software can be both free and "paid for".
  - fleitz 12y ago
    Yes, copylefted software is "tyrannical" to you because it prevents you from using the software to build proprietary software, your powers reading comprehension astound me.

phillmv 12y ago

Tyranny is a strong word for "please only use this free code in the ways that I have outlined".

eridius 12y ago
It's Tyranny because the express goal of the GPL is to force all software to be free and open source. It's one thing to just say "my library has restrictions, please obey them", but the GPL is designed to try to infect as much of the software world as it possibly can, forcing via legal measures other software to catch its copyleft virus.
- davexunit 12y ago
  >the express goal of the GPL is to force all software to be free The GPL does not force software to be free. It is not viral. Please stop using such dishonest language. The GPL will only be a part of software project if you choose to use it. It doesn't invite itself in.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  Because using coercion in the interest of "freedom" always works out so well.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
    What is your definition of "coercion" that you are using here?
    - stcredzero 12y ago
      The same sense that the FSF uses coercion when they describe participation in closed-source.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
  Given the analogy you are using, do I understand it correctly that software can "catch" GPL (as in being required to be released under the GPL, I suppose?) without a deliberate decision of its developers to include GPL licensed code into their codebase? Could you explain how that works? Also, would you use the same language to describe typical proprietary licenses? After all, most of those would also prevent me from publishing any codebase incorporating any code I obtained under such a license as free software--or in your terminology, the codebase would be "infected" by the proprietary license which forces my software to also "catch a proprietary license"? I'm not quite sure I understand your analogy, though ...

lumberjack 12y ago

I don't understand this viewpoint of supposed "tyranny". I can understand why one would publish under MIT/BSD because they think that a developer is entitled to close source their software even if it builds onto free software. But then if you support such freedom for the developer why isn't a developer entitled to publish under GPL because its their software and they can do whatever they want with it. It seems like this viewpoint is implicitly saying that close sourcing the code is totally fine, but publishing the code under GPL isn't. That does not make sense to me.

trebor 12y ago
There is no supposition about tyranny here. It used to be that the GPLv2 allowed use of libraries in applications so long as any adjustments to the library contributed back to the project. This was fair and reasonable, even when working on a commercial project. With GPLv3 you can no longer use GPL software, even as a library, in non-GPL software. [1] There's one exception, but it doesn't really apply to PHP libraries/applications (because there's no distinction between either in PHP; it's all source code). [2] I never said that a developer isn't entitled to their choice of license. In fact, I fully support and encourage that. But choosing GPLv3 and then expecting people to use the library is a conflict of terms. I have equal rights to yours over how I license my code—at least until I pick the GPL. [2] So, attempting to dictate what license I use when writing my code by including a "viral" copy-left clause in your license is tyrannical and arrogant. I do have to eat. So if my only choices are GPL licensed libraries and a project we can't release source for, all you GPL-only guys make me waste my time writing a proprietary library. I absolutely resent the copy-left. And I won't ever use the GPL because I won't inflict such terms upon anyone, commercial or open-source users of my libraries or software. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL [2]: Bear in mind that my day-job is writing PHP code, and all distribution of libraries and software is in source form. The GPLv3 has special exceptions for statically linked languages loading the library dynamically, but in PHP the whole application is (arguably) in source form and always loaded dynamically.
- dllthomas 12y ago