5 ms·

The problem, I think, with the GPL community is that they refuse to accept that almost all software developers make a living by working for a company, and feel

The problem, I think, with the GPL community is that they refuse to accept that almost all software developers make a living by working for a company, and feel that it is unjust to refuse their libraries to others who do the same. And, because their software is open source, someone will inevitably create a better competing library based on the ideas behind the GPL one. That new library? Apache license.

outside1234 12y ago
This. There is the ivory tower and the real world, and in the real world, the license can't be GPL.
- fdej 12y ago
  Linux (sorry, GNU/Linux) is ample evidence to the contrary.
  - superuser2 12y ago
    No it's not. Linux is useful and used all of the time in proprietary systems because there are lots of useful classes of things you can do with linux that aren't derivative works. There are no useful things you can do with a library besides link it.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      Other than use it in Linux and GPLed software, software which offers lots of useful classes of things that you can do with them that aren't derivative works.
  - outside1234 12y ago
    He was talking about libraries, not platforms. Sorry I should have made that clear.
dllthomas 12y ago
While it's true that GPL is often incompatible with specific strategies chosen by companies (and often those are the most effective strategies in the current environment, and maybe in any reasonable environment), there is still a tremendous gulf between GPL - which permits commercial uses that abide by its restrictions - and anything with a non-commercial clause. Not that this entirely undermines your point, just promoting deeper awareness/understanding of the issues.
- mark_l_watson 12y ago
  +1 that is a good point: for many of us, the GPL is much less restrictive than source code with a no commercial use license. I have mostly rolled over on the issue of license and usually dual GPL/Apache license my own projects.
rdtsc 12y ago
> And, because their software is open source, someone will inevitably create a better competing library based on the ideas behind the GPL one. Or, in some cases, just buy a proprietary license from the authors? That is often an option (not always but sometimes, we are doing it). Surely if these software developers are making a living selling software, presumably by licensing it and so on, they understand and are very familiar with how that works? > That new library? Apache license. Because they will just keep it in house and not release it. Which...is exactly what GPL is designed to discourage. Some benevolent companies like Google might but not others are not. At least I don't see a problem with authors choosing a license they like. I will not put them down or criticize for choosing GPL, there are good reasons to choose GPL sometimes.
pessimizer 12y ago
I'm having trouble parsing your first sentence. There's a problem of refusing to be accepted that almost all, and unjust to refuse to others that do the same. One or both of us are making a sign error. Are you saying that the "GPL community" don't want software developers that work for a company to use their libraries?
- josephschmoe 12y ago
  More succinct point: I can't use GPL software libraries at work. I have no interest in developing under GPL because it would expose others to the same problem. There are ways the GPL community could attempt to incorporate individuals like me, but to be honest, I much prefer a world where anyone can use any open source code however they wish.
  - davexunit 12y ago
    Have you considered that the problem could be that your company is writing proprietary software?
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
    Do you for the same reason also have no interest in developing under proprietary licenses? After all, that also exposes others to the problem that they cannot just use your code.
- eridius 12y ago
  > Are you saying that the "GPL community" don't want software developers that work for a company to use their libraries? I am not the person you responded to, but that actually sounds about right for the GPL community. As far as I can tell, GPL predicated upon the idea that nobody should be able to charge money for software. It's not saying that there should be free software, it's saying all software should be free (where "free" in this case also means open source).
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    Entirely incorrect. It's based on the idea that everyone should be able to read and modify everything. Free as in speech, not free as in beer.

outside1234 12y ago

This. There is the ivory tower and the real world, and in the real world, the license can't be GPL.

fdej 12y ago
Linux (sorry, GNU/Linux) is ample evidence to the contrary.
- superuser2 12y ago
  No it's not. Linux is useful and used all of the time in proprietary systems because there are lots of useful classes of things you can do with linux that aren't derivative works. There are no useful things you can do with a library besides link it.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    Other than use it in Linux and GPLed software, software which offers lots of useful classes of things that you can do with them that aren't derivative works.
- outside1234 12y ago
  He was talking about libraries, not platforms. Sorry I should have made that clear.

dllthomas 12y ago

While it's true that GPL is often incompatible with specific strategies chosen by companies (and often those are the most effective strategies in the current environment, and maybe in any reasonable environment), there is still a tremendous gulf between GPL - which permits commercial uses that abide by its restrictions - and anything with a non-commercial clause. Not that this entirely undermines your point, just promoting deeper awareness/understanding of the issues.

mark_l_watson 12y ago
+1 that is a good point: for many of us, the GPL is much less restrictive than source code with a no commercial use license. I have mostly rolled over on the issue of license and usually dual GPL/Apache license my own projects.

rdtsc 12y ago

> And, because their software is open source, someone will inevitably create a better competing library based on the ideas behind the GPL one. Or, in some cases, just buy a proprietary license from the authors? That is often an option (not always but sometimes, we are doing it). Surely if these software developers are making a living selling software, presumably by licensing it and so on, they understand and are very familiar with how that works? > That new library? Apache license. Because they will just keep it in house and not release it. Which...is exactly what GPL is designed to discourage. Some benevolent companies like Google might but not others are not. At least I don't see a problem with authors choosing a license they like. I will not put them down or criticize for choosing GPL, there are good reasons to choose GPL sometimes.

pessimizer 12y ago

I'm having trouble parsing your first sentence. There's a problem of refusing to be accepted that almost all, and unjust to refuse to others that do the same. One or both of us are making a sign error. Are you saying that the "GPL community" don't want software developers that work for a company to use their libraries?

josephschmoe 12y ago
More succinct point: I can't use GPL software libraries at work. I have no interest in developing under GPL because it would expose others to the same problem. There are ways the GPL community could attempt to incorporate individuals like me, but to be honest, I much prefer a world where anyone can use any open source code however they wish.
- davexunit 12y ago
  Have you considered that the problem could be that your company is writing proprietary software?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
  Do you for the same reason also have no interest in developing under proprietary licenses? After all, that also exposes others to the problem that they cannot just use your code.
eridius 12y ago
> Are you saying that the "GPL community" don't want software developers that work for a company to use their libraries? I am not the person you responded to, but that actually sounds about right for the GPL community. As far as I can tell, GPL predicated upon the idea that nobody should be able to charge money for software. It's not saying that there should be free software, it's saying all software should be free (where "free" in this case also means open source).
- stcredzero 12y ago
  Entirely incorrect. It's based on the idea that everyone should be able to read and modify everything. Free as in speech, not free as in beer.