13 ms·

That depends on if you are encouraging "free" for societies interests or "free" for individual/corp interests. GPLv3 encourages the former, but not the later. T

That depends on if you are encouraging "free" for societies interests or "free" for individual/corp interests. GPLv3 encourages the former, but not the later. The two interests almost always come into some degree of conflict (although in many ways are compatible). I view the flamewarz between BSDish and GPLvX licenses as similar in spirit to the arguments between laissez faire capitalism and northern European social capitalism.

danieldk 12y ago
For me personally, important reasons for switching from GPL licenses to Apache are: the Apache license I can read and understand; the GPL is vague in many points, leading to multiple interpretations; and license compatibilities between the GPL and other licenses (and between GPL versions/variants). Also, I don't want to force my ideology (I find FLOSS preferable) on other people, while still giving my software away. However, technical reasons such as the above were 50% of my license choice. Given the vagueness of the GPL, I can fully understand that many companies do not want to deal with that, even if they want to contribute to FLOSS in some way.
- ue_ 12y ago
  What do you find to be vague about the GPL? I've personally never even had to visit the GPL FAQ at gnu.org.
Igglyboo 12y ago
I'm not encouraging either just taking the word "free" in the purest sense. GPL has more restrictions than MIT/BSD and thus is less free.
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  The GPL isn't about the freedom of the dev to do whatever they want, it's about the freedom of the code to always be available. EDIT: Essentially, saying you aren't free because you're not free to kill me without repercussion is absurd. GPL advocates view freedom the same way: You can't do something to hurt me, but that doesn't make you less free.
  - voidlogic 12y ago
    >>The GPL isn't about the freedom of the dev to do whatever they want, it's about the freedom of the code to always be available. This is exactly the conflict I was referring too, thank you.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The GPL isn't about the freedom of the dev to do whatever they want, it's about the freedom of the code to always be available. The GPL does nothing to assure that code will be available. It does assure that if code is available, then it will also usable under Free terms.
    - jimktrains2 12y ago
      > The GPL does nothing to assure that code will be available. It does assure that if code is available, then it will also usable under Free terms. I do believe you're wrong. If I am using software licensed under the GPL, then the code _must_ be made available. That's the crux of the GPL.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > If I am using software licensed under the GPL, then the code _must_ be made available. If you are distributing software under permission of a GPL license (e.g., you aren't the copyright holder) you are required to also make the source code of what you are distributing (which may not include all of the original on which it is based) available. If you are using software that you received that was licensed under the GPL, the source code may or may not be available (it may have been required to be at the moment the software was distributed, but whether it will be later or not is less clear), and the source of the upstream may or may not be available even if the source of what you received is. GPL doesn't keep the source code that it is attached to available, it assures that the software or legal derivatives will not be legally distributed except under terms that make the source code available. This may encourage the source code to remain available (if there are factors encouraging the distribution of the software), or it may not.
- zanny 12y ago
  Free software is about the users ability to understand how the software works, modify it to their whim, and distribute their modifications or changes. Since permissive licenses enable downstream users to recast the project into a proprietary state, denying those freedoms, then they are less free, in the free software sense. Permissive licenses are developer friendly. They let you do whatever you want, including restricting users of your software. Copyleft is user and ecosystem friendly, by making it so any use of the code must stay available.
  - clarry 12y ago
    The user/developer divide is the worst excuse for the GPLs' restrictions. Once users "modifiy it to their whim" and distribute the changes, they're developers and distributors. At that point, it's the developers' and distributors' freedoms that matter to them.
  - air 12y ago
    As an end user: I can combine GPLv2 (eg. linux kernel) and BSD licensed code, and distribute it. I can combine GPLv3 and BSD licensed code, and distribute it. I cannot combine GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed code, and distribute it. As an end user, I like BSD licensed code more.
    - jimktrains2 12y ago
      Except the BSD licensed code may not be available for you to distribute or play with; that's the crux of the issue.
      - bronson 12y ago
        That's true of GPL code too... If my project is GPLv2, then GPLv3 code is not available to distribute or play with. Personally I'm happy for people to use and modify the code I've given away, even if they don't choose to give back their changes.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
GrinningFool 12y ago
"That depends on if you are encouraging "free" for societies interests or "free" for individual/corp interests. " I disagree - the definition of software being free to modify and redistribute doesn't change based on the intent of the modifier. There are more restrictions on your freedom to do these things under GPLvX than under Apache/etc. A software author chooses which license based on the desire to encourage societal interests or individual interests, but the underlying meaning of 'free' remains constant.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Myopically considering the individual piece of code, it's easy to say that a permissive license is more free. The question of "what leads to more freedom in total" is more important, and not as easily answered.
  - GrinningFool 12y ago
    Your phrasing implies that invoking more control over the code in a project has the potential to lead to more freedom in total. I'd argue that this is ... if not more myopic, at least a more ego-centric view. That is, it implies that the author knows better than everyone else how to maximize total freedom engendered by his efforts, on the basis of how he or she permits them to be used - instead of allowing others the freedom to make their own choices.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      We're not talking about arbitrary control; we're talking about one specific set of restrictions designed specifically for the protection of freedom. It's quite possible they fail at that, compared to alternatives, but it is not at all incomprehensible that they might succeed - restricting some behavior often leads to more freedom in general, especially when that behavior involves exercise of power over others. Proof of existence, by example: Selling a knife with a "this can't be used for mugging" clause - in a world where mugging wasn't illegal - restricts the freedom of the purchaser but only when you don't consider those they would impact if they exercised that freedom. To be clear, I'm not saying "selling proprietary software is exactly like mugging"; I'm just saying your general "restrictions always mean less freedom" doesn't hold up. All of this is not to say that I think it's entirely clear that copyleft licenses do lead to more freedom overall. My initial statement was precisely that it's not particularly clear. My personal expectation (which I'd argue for if we want to go down that path but hold weakly in that I consider other views reasonable) is that it varies from case to case.
namuol 12y ago
This is really just a terminology thing; I prefer "Libre" vs "Permissive".

danieldk 12y ago

For me personally, important reasons for switching from GPL licenses to Apache are: the Apache license I can read and understand; the GPL is vague in many points, leading to multiple interpretations; and license compatibilities between the GPL and other licenses (and between GPL versions/variants). Also, I don't want to force my ideology (I find FLOSS preferable) on other people, while still giving my software away. However, technical reasons such as the above were 50% of my license choice. Given the vagueness of the GPL, I can fully understand that many companies do not want to deal with that, even if they want to contribute to FLOSS in some way.

ue_ 12y ago
What do you find to be vague about the GPL? I've personally never even had to visit the GPL FAQ at gnu.org.

Igglyboo 12y ago

I'm not encouraging either just taking the word "free" in the purest sense. GPL has more restrictions than MIT/BSD and thus is less free.

jimktrains2 12y ago
The GPL isn't about the freedom of the dev to do whatever they want, it's about the freedom of the code to always be available. EDIT: Essentially, saying you aren't free because you're not free to kill me without repercussion is absurd. GPL advocates view freedom the same way: You can't do something to hurt me, but that doesn't make you less free.
- voidlogic 12y ago
  >>The GPL isn't about the freedom of the dev to do whatever they want, it's about the freedom of the code to always be available. This is exactly the conflict I was referring too, thank you.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The GPL isn't about the freedom of the dev to do whatever they want, it's about the freedom of the code to always be available. The GPL does nothing to assure that code will be available. It does assure that if code is available, then it will also usable under Free terms.
  - jimktrains2 12y ago
    > The GPL does nothing to assure that code will be available. It does assure that if code is available, then it will also usable under Free terms. I do believe you're wrong. If I am using software licensed under the GPL, then the code _must_ be made available. That's the crux of the GPL.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > If I am using software licensed under the GPL, then the code _must_ be made available. If you are distributing software under permission of a GPL license (e.g., you aren't the copyright holder) you are required to also make the source code of what you are distributing (which may not include all of the original on which it is based) available. If you are using software that you received that was licensed under the GPL, the source code may or may not be available (it may have been required to be at the moment the software was distributed, but whether it will be later or not is less clear), and the source of the upstream may or may not be available even if the source of what you received is. GPL doesn't keep the source code that it is attached to available, it assures that the software or legal derivatives will not be legally distributed except under terms that make the source code available. This may encourage the source code to remain available (if there are factors encouraging the distribution of the software), or it may not.
zanny 12y ago
Free software is about the users ability to understand how the software works, modify it to their whim, and distribute their modifications or changes. Since permissive licenses enable downstream users to recast the project into a proprietary state, denying those freedoms, then they are less free, in the free software sense. Permissive licenses are developer friendly. They let you do whatever you want, including restricting users of your software. Copyleft is user and ecosystem friendly, by making it so any use of the code must stay available.
- clarry 12y ago
  The user/developer divide is the worst excuse for the GPLs' restrictions. Once users "modifiy it to their whim" and distribute the changes, they're developers and distributors. At that point, it's the developers' and distributors' freedoms that matter to them.
- air 12y ago
  As an end user: I can combine GPLv2 (eg. linux kernel) and BSD licensed code, and distribute it. I can combine GPLv3 and BSD licensed code, and distribute it. I cannot combine GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed code, and distribute it. As an end user, I like BSD licensed code more.
  - jimktrains2 12y ago
    Except the BSD licensed code may not be available for you to distribute or play with; that's the crux of the issue.
    - bronson 12y ago
      That's true of GPL code too... If my project is GPLv2, then GPLv3 code is not available to distribute or play with. Personally I'm happy for people to use and modify the code I've given away, even if they don't choose to give back their changes.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]

GrinningFool 12y ago

"That depends on if you are encouraging "free" for societies interests or "free" for individual/corp interests. " I disagree - the definition of software being free to modify and redistribute doesn't change based on the intent of the modifier. There are more restrictions on your freedom to do these things under GPLvX than under Apache/etc. A software author chooses which license based on the desire to encourage societal interests or individual interests, but the underlying meaning of 'free' remains constant.

dllthomas 12y ago
Myopically considering the individual piece of code, it's easy to say that a permissive license is more free. The question of "what leads to more freedom in total" is more important, and not as easily answered.
- GrinningFool 12y ago
  Your phrasing implies that invoking more control over the code in a project has the potential to lead to more freedom in total. I'd argue that this is ... if not more myopic, at least a more ego-centric view. That is, it implies that the author knows better than everyone else how to maximize total freedom engendered by his efforts, on the basis of how he or she permits them to be used - instead of allowing others the freedom to make their own choices.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    We're not talking about arbitrary control; we're talking about one specific set of restrictions designed specifically for the protection of freedom. It's quite possible they fail at that, compared to alternatives, but it is not at all incomprehensible that they might succeed - restricting some behavior often leads to more freedom in general, especially when that behavior involves exercise of power over others. Proof of existence, by example: Selling a knife with a "this can't be used for mugging" clause - in a world where mugging wasn't illegal - restricts the freedom of the purchaser but only when you don't consider those they would impact if they exercised that freedom. To be clear, I'm not saying "selling proprietary software is exactly like mugging"; I'm just saying your general "restrictions always mean less freedom" doesn't hold up. All of this is not to say that I think it's entirely clear that copyleft licenses do lead to more freedom overall. My initial statement was precisely that it's not particularly clear. My personal expectation (which I'd argue for if we want to go down that path but hold weakly in that I consider other views reasonable) is that it varies from case to case.

namuol 12y ago

This is really just a terminology thing; I prefer "Libre" vs "Permissive".