3 ms·

Trollish article and sensational headline. Foss code licensed under GPL and variants thereof is more common than every other license combined: http://license-i

by keyist 17y ago

Trollish article and sensational headline. Foss code licensed under GPL and variants thereof is more common than every other license combined: http://license-info.appspot.com/ http://license-info.appspot.com/ . The plural of anecdote is not data -- N examples of individuals/companies who choose not to go the GPL route cannot refute the fact that it has spearheaded free software. His example of Apple's use of LLVM as evidence that "you don't necessarily get good results from forcing people to do things" is purely confirmation bias. If he really went looking, he'd realize that Apple also used WebKit/KHTML despite being 'forced' to release their contributions to that library. It is also telling that they stop contributing back the moment the LGPL allows them to. What about his point that the GPL causes harm: "A few people in different companies have recently told me something that leads me to believe that the GPL actually does cause harm.. [they use bsd due to compliance worries]" Oh noes!!! A few people in different companies told him they use BSD instead of GPL! This is the real smoking gun against the GPL, folks! How will it ever survive now?

antonovka 17y ago
Like nearly all corporations (who are the primary sponsors of a vast majority of major project's open source development), Apple's use of GPL/LGPL software is a pragmatic one based on the value of the software, not the license. If the license becomes too onerous (which it now has, with the FSF's push for GPLv3 and desire for broad adoption of virally licensed GPL software), Apple has -- and will continue to -- move away from GPL software. In other words, the GPL is something that is tolerated insofar as it doesn't conflict with business goals.
- keyist 17y ago
  Like the author of that article, you seem to be fixated on contributions being the measure of the GPL's success. Preserving the four freedoms is the goal of the GPL. Requiring people to contribute back is the means.
  - antonovka 17y ago
    The point is that the minute the "four freedoms" conflicts with "business priorities", we drop the GPL software like a hot potato. That is to say, the GPL hasn't really succeeded at protecting the "four freedoms", it's merely done so as a side effect of the success of GPL'd software. GCC sat on the top of the hill for a long time due to the fact that the GPL's restrictions were an acceptable cost. However, when it came time for a library-linkable compiler, look at what Apple did -- they didn't GPL their software to allow linking against GCC -- instead, they decided to sponsor development of a new compiler.
    - krakensden 17y ago
      GCC does have a bit of a reputation as a nightmare codebase though- a new project using new techniques and tools (er.. LLVM) doesn't seem so unreasonable.
- gloob 17y ago
  In other words, the GPL is something that is tolerated insofar as it doesn't conflict with existing business goals. Which, for the vast majority of businesses, it really doesn't. The number of companies that distribute software, whether compiled or as source, is really quite tiny when compared to the number of companies that use software. Not to say that the GPL isn't a problem for some companies, and it's hardly surprising that said companies would pull out this metaphorical splinter if that is viable for them, but it seems implausible to me that (e.g.) Nike is horrified at the thought that their website is completely dependent upon GPL'd code. I don't think there are many sane people who expect corporations to stick their necks out for the GPL as a matter of principle; that said, I don't think many people really care. Hell, even the FSF will usually leave companies alone if they just follow the bloody license attached to the software they're using.
  - antonovka 17y ago
    Yes, but this doesn't mean that the GPL is a success -- rather, the software has succeeded on its own merit in spite of the downsides of the GPL. In contrast, there are numerous examples where potential software success has been restricted by the limitations of the GPL.
    - gloob 17y ago
      I don't really disagree...except that fulfilling "potential software success" isn't the point of the GPL. The point of the GPL is to propagate Stallman's "Four Freedoms", and anything/everything else really is tangential to the issue. Whether or not the license has held back companies, or individual developers, or the evolution of software development as a whole isn't really the primary concern of those who use or support the use of the GPL. From that perspective, what you refer to as "the downsides of the GPL" really aren't downsides, any more than an apple being green instead of red is a "downside". The point of the apple is to be eaten; colour is more or less irrelevant. The point of the GPL is to make certain a specific ethical belief is followed and transmitted; whether that ideology is convenient or not for others is secondary at best. Calling the license a "failure" from a viewpoint completely different than the one it was created by is trivial and meaningless, in the same way that it is both trivial and meaningless for me to call someone's apple tree a failure for not growing the colour of apples that I happen to like.
michaelneale 17y ago
Well I thought the point about it being a distribution of software licence (not a usage licence) meaning companies like google can use it without sharing changes was interesting (but I am sure that point has been covered in lots of other places).

by keyist 17y ago

antonovka 17y ago

Like nearly all corporations (who are the primary sponsors of a vast majority of major project's open source development), Apple's use of GPL/LGPL software is a pragmatic one based on the value of the software, not the license. If the license becomes too onerous (which it now has, with the FSF's push for GPLv3 and desire for broad adoption of virally licensed GPL software), Apple has -- and will continue to -- move away from GPL software. In other words, the GPL is something that is tolerated insofar as it doesn't conflict with business goals.

keyist 17y ago
Like the author of that article, you seem to be fixated on contributions being the measure of the GPL's success. Preserving the four freedoms is the goal of the GPL. Requiring people to contribute back is the means.
- antonovka 17y ago
  The point is that the minute the "four freedoms" conflicts with "business priorities", we drop the GPL software like a hot potato. That is to say, the GPL hasn't really succeeded at protecting the "four freedoms", it's merely done so as a side effect of the success of GPL'd software. GCC sat on the top of the hill for a long time due to the fact that the GPL's restrictions were an acceptable cost. However, when it came time for a library-linkable compiler, look at what Apple did -- they didn't GPL their software to allow linking against GCC -- instead, they decided to sponsor development of a new compiler.
  - krakensden 17y ago
    GCC does have a bit of a reputation as a nightmare codebase though- a new project using new techniques and tools (er.. LLVM) doesn't seem so unreasonable.
gloob 17y ago
In other words, the GPL is something that is tolerated insofar as it doesn't conflict with existing business goals. Which, for the vast majority of businesses, it really doesn't. The number of companies that distribute software, whether compiled or as source, is really quite tiny when compared to the number of companies that use software. Not to say that the GPL isn't a problem for some companies, and it's hardly surprising that said companies would pull out this metaphorical splinter if that is viable for them, but it seems implausible to me that (e.g.) Nike is horrified at the thought that their website is completely dependent upon GPL'd code. I don't think there are many sane people who expect corporations to stick their necks out for the GPL as a matter of principle; that said, I don't think many people really care. Hell, even the FSF will usually leave companies alone if they just follow the bloody license attached to the software they're using.
- antonovka 17y ago
  Yes, but this doesn't mean that the GPL is a success -- rather, the software has succeeded on its own merit in spite of the downsides of the GPL. In contrast, there are numerous examples where potential software success has been restricted by the limitations of the GPL.
  - gloob 17y ago
    I don't really disagree...except that fulfilling "potential software success" isn't the point of the GPL. The point of the GPL is to propagate Stallman's "Four Freedoms", and anything/everything else really is tangential to the issue. Whether or not the license has held back companies, or individual developers, or the evolution of software development as a whole isn't really the primary concern of those who use or support the use of the GPL. From that perspective, what you refer to as "the downsides of the GPL" really aren't downsides, any more than an apple being green instead of red is a "downside". The point of the apple is to be eaten; colour is more or less irrelevant. The point of the GPL is to make certain a specific ethical belief is followed and transmitted; whether that ideology is convenient or not for others is secondary at best. Calling the license a "failure" from a viewpoint completely different than the one it was created by is trivial and meaningless, in the same way that it is both trivial and meaningless for me to call someone's apple tree a failure for not growing the colour of apples that I happen to like.

michaelneale 17y ago

Well I thought the point about it being a distribution of software licence (not a usage licence) meaning companies like google can use it without sharing changes was interesting (but I am sure that point has been covered in lots of other places).