6 ms·

So many people hate on the GPL. I personally like. It will protect your freedom as an open source developer. It is a good thing.

by esaym 12y ago

Argorak 12y ago
Especially, it protects your right as an open source user, which I feel is a perspective rarely taken.
- jordigh 12y ago
  As a free-software user. Or a free software-user, take your pick. :-)
- digi_owl 12y ago
  Frankly i find that the GPL do not distinguish between the two. Any user is a potential developer, given time and access to tools.
  - Argorak 12y ago
    Hm, I would make the distinction, but I do see the point you are making. It ensures people can even become developers.
spopejoy 12y ago
Agreed. I can't help but be depressed that anti-GPL FUD dominates convos on HN. I mean, my own work has been disrupted by GPL being "inconvenient" but I will still defend it. My life has been enriched by the great software written under it, and the fact that it continues to thrive under this terrific license.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Is that a function of the software, or of the license? (And more importantly, can that difference be quantified?) BSD/MIT is pretty well thriving, too. You probably use OpenSSH every day :) The more permissive licenses always seemed the way to go, to me. I'd rather people contribute out of personal desire to, rather than legal obligation. That, and the GPL always seemed a bit too communist (in the sense of implying that other people have a moral right to your work) for my taste.
  - bad_user 12y ago
    Does it really matter? If a software author wants for people to use/distribute his software under a specific license, that's his prerogative. And the GPL is a truly free and open source license, it does allow you to use it commercially and for whatever reason, it does allow you to create derivates, all it asks is that in case you redistribute a derivate, you must also give the source-code on request. It's not even an EULA, it's just a copyright license. And btw, compared to BSD/MIT, the GPL also contains a patents grant (implicit but powerful enough for version 2, explicit for version 3). And unfortunately in this universe, the big companies contributing to open-source also have really big patents portfolios, therefore I always look suspiciously at code licensed with BSD/MIT. And unfortunately patent trolls are a reality. If you prefer more permissive licenses, then go for the Apache 2.0 ;-)
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      If a software author wants for people to use/distribute his software under a specific license, that's his prerogative. We're discussing the merits of particular licenses, particularly their impact on the software world, so this is kind of tautological, don't you think? In any case, I was not aware of that difference between Apache and BSD, so you have my sincere thanks for pointing that out. I've got a few things on Github to modify methinks...
      - bad_user 12y ago
        Well, I wanted to point out that as far as open-source goes, it has a pretty good definition and in the larger scheme of things, the actual open-source license used does not matter, all that matters is to get people to contribute. But people contribute when they've got reasons to do so and many people believe in copyleft. And the GPL is an interesting case, because it happened because its author hated copyright, so he decided to turn it on its head and use it to his advantage. And in a world in which copyright (and other IP laws) keep getting worse, copyleft gets even more relevant. To the issue of whether copyleft did any good versus MIT/BSD, well, would have Apple open-sourced WebKit if it wasn't for KHTML's LGPL license? I'm inclined towards no, but truth is, we'll never know. On GCC on the other hand, its authors not only used GPL, but actually made it hard in the actual code for proprietary extensions to happen. This might have been good 15-20 years ago, when the landscape was dominated by proprietary compilers, but now I consider that we're better off with LLVM taking off.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  Same here. I think most people don't realize what the world was like before open source and free software. Just using someone's code or sharing code for free was pretty radical. Now it seems obvious that you can use a free compiler. A free Unix-like OS. That was not the case. And people forget that. I think GPL, GNU toolkit, Linux are a big part of that. I think this is a much better and interesting world than it was before. That is why I support it.
  - marrs 12y ago
    It taught me how to code.
Rusky 12y ago
What I don't get about this thread is why people who dislike the GPL would want it to fail here. I'm not the GPL's biggest fan, but why would we want to weaken copyright in this way?
- justincormack 12y ago
  It is not about weakening copyright. It is about reducing uncertainty about what the GPL means. GPLv2 is not very well drafted in terms of linking and derived works, and v3 is not much better. And software like Linux is stuck with GPLv2 pretty much forever.
  - Rusky 12y ago
    Right, it's not immediately about copyright, per se. But the GPL relies entirely on copyright and if this ends up setting a precedent that you can't use copyright to enforce the (unfortunately vague?) terms of the GPL, that weakens copyright.
    - nymisunderrated 12y ago
      It's a good question if it does "weaken copyright". That would be a good thing, and a primer in thirty+ years, because it would equally reduce its breadth from proprietary applications. By what I see now (from old and new, but cursory public information), most likely, VMWare has too big resources for a long protracted legal battle, and I don't know if Conservancy can stand to it. That's not the same thing at all.
sanderjd 12y ago
For me, it's a matter of goals. I think the GPL makes a lot of sense for creating a free software ecosystem, like GNU and Linux have done. But when I consider creating an open source project, that is just not usually my goal. Rather, I want my solution to whatever problem to be useful to as many people as possible, whether they're building something open or proprietary. Perhaps one day I'll create something that I envision fostering an ecosystem of derived works and many contributors, and I may well choose GPL for it, but until then, the more permissive licenses are more in line with my goals.
- rayiner 12y ago
  The GPL is useful when you want to build a community of open source code, but not useful when you want to work for someone else for free. Arguably, that's the whole point.
  - sanderjd 12y ago
    I'm not sure if you were summarizing or disagreeing with me, but I mostly agree with you, except that I think the "work for someone else for free" part is spin. It's not totally inaccurate, it just mischaracterizes the goals and practicalities of the work. The goal isn't to make something useful to commercial entities, it's to make something useful to anybody (or, more likely in my case, nobody). Working for someone also implies that they control the design and direction of the work, but one of the huge draws of open source work is that you are able to design and direct it however you want. If someone likes your design and direction, they can use it, but they can't tell you what to do.
  - halostatue 12y ago
    Sometimes it’s also about being able to reuse work that you’ve done elsewhere for other employers. My current employer is friendly to the idea of me open sourcing a lot of the ancillary work that I’ve done that may be useful to other projects. Using the GNU GPL family of licenses would not even be on our radar. (It isn’t core code, and if we accepted contributions from elsewhere, it would then start to have the ability to taint our code.)
  - 12y ago
Radim 12y ago
I generally find that the GPL hatred comes a lot from academic circles. Lots of university-produced software prefers BSD or MIT, and looks down on GPL/LGPL. I guess when you're paid from other people's taxes, you don't care as much about perceived "fairness", or that businesses don't take advantage of your work. It may even be the right thing to do. In fact, companies using your "free", no-strings-attached SW may be a bonus in that situation. It looks good on academic grant applications. Of course, the word "free" here means "paid for by other people", as it often does.
- halostatue 12y ago
  I’m not an academic. I do not use the GNU GPL for my code (unless required to by other licences because I am deriving my work from someone else) and I do what I can to discourage people from choosing it “by default”. My dislike for the GNU GPL comes mostly from the dishonest marketing (“free”, “freedom”) and dissembling about the licence (it is “viral” and that’s a feature). I also do not particularly care to replicate the FSF’s peculiar political rant when I distribute software. However, if you want to enforce “share-alike” semantics for what you write, and you want the widest composability of your software with other “share-alike” software, by all means choose the GNU GPL (prefer locked to v2 unless you really care about “TiVo”-isation, then lock to v3—never choose the “at your discretion, a later version” clause). If you want to discourage SaaS companies from forming around your software, choose the GNU AGPL. If you want to enforce limited “share-alike” semantics at the link boundary, choose the GNU LGPL•. • Warning to people using GNU LGPL software, though: it doesn’t mean what you think it means. You still have to provide recipients of your combined software the means to relink your software with modified versions of the GNU LGPL libraries. If, however, you write software to scratch your own itch and don’t care what people do with it after you’ve written it? Pick a different licence: MIT, BSD, Apache, Artistic, whatever. You can even pick the GNU GPL family of licences if you really want that, but at least know why you’re picking it.
- scott_s 12y ago
  I have not seen "GPL hatred" from academic circles; in my time in academia, I did not hear anyone disparage the GPL. In fact, I don't think most academics had a deep understanding of the difference between open source licenses. That luxury is possible when you're not running a business. I do, however, associate GPL resistance (not "hatred") from for-profit businesses.
BrainInAJar 12y ago
MPL will protect your code's openness as well, but still play nicely with other open source (eg, FreeBSD can pull in your code.) GPL serves to prevent anyone with other ideas on what open source means from collaborating with you
- mlinksva 12y ago
  Interesting, I didn't realize FreeBSD will take MPL code. Do you have a reference or example of this policy? (I did a naive search and couldn't find.)
  - BrainInAJar 12y ago
    ZFS & DTrace are under a MPL-like license (CDDL), they ship with FreeBSD, and are in a "third party, probably violates the GPL" ghetto on Linux
the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
> It will protect your freedom as an open source developer. It protects your freedom as a free software developer maybe. People that do not release under the GPL do not really benefit from it.
Aldo_MX 12y ago
I'll be honest, the GPL as-is is too obtuse to the extent it fails it's own premise of "This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful". I agree with the principle that if you make improvements to the original work you MUST contribute those improvements back, and I like the fact that the GPL protects and enforces this principle. But other restrictions leaves much to be desired because they seem too idealistic to be feasible (ex. distributing your entire work under the GPL). I don't condone breaking the GPL if you disagree with it, but I believe that free and non-free software should not be mutually exclusive as the GPL intends to be; real life is not black and white.
- pmontra 12y ago
  I think it's difficult to draw a line between improvements and derivative work (what your "entire work") could be. The GPL plays safe and requires redistribution of everything. I'd play safe too, with BSD I could end up seeing a company getting rich starting with my code and locking me outside of any improvements. I'm not so generous.

So many people hate on the GPL. I personally like. It will protect your freedom as an open source developer. It is a good thing.

by esaym 12y ago

So many people hate on the GPL. I personally like. It will protect your freedom as an open source developer. It is a good thing.

Argorak 12y ago

Especially, it protects your right as an open source user, which I feel is a perspective rarely taken.

jordigh 12y ago
As a free-software user. Or a free software-user, take your pick. :-)
digi_owl 12y ago
Frankly i find that the GPL do not distinguish between the two. Any user is a potential developer, given time and access to tools.
- Argorak 12y ago
  Hm, I would make the distinction, but I do see the point you are making. It ensures people can even become developers.

spopejoy 12y ago

Agreed. I can't help but be depressed that anti-GPL FUD dominates convos on HN. I mean, my own work has been disrupted by GPL being "inconvenient" but I will still defend it. My life has been enriched by the great software written under it, and the fact that it continues to thrive under this terrific license.

Karunamon 12y ago
Is that a function of the software, or of the license? (And more importantly, can that difference be quantified?) BSD/MIT is pretty well thriving, too. You probably use OpenSSH every day :) The more permissive licenses always seemed the way to go, to me. I'd rather people contribute out of personal desire to, rather than legal obligation. That, and the GPL always seemed a bit too communist (in the sense of implying that other people have a moral right to your work) for my taste.
- bad_user 12y ago
  Does it really matter? If a software author wants for people to use/distribute his software under a specific license, that's his prerogative. And the GPL is a truly free and open source license, it does allow you to use it commercially and for whatever reason, it does allow you to create derivates, all it asks is that in case you redistribute a derivate, you must also give the source-code on request. It's not even an EULA, it's just a copyright license. And btw, compared to BSD/MIT, the GPL also contains a patents grant (implicit but powerful enough for version 2, explicit for version 3). And unfortunately in this universe, the big companies contributing to open-source also have really big patents portfolios, therefore I always look suspiciously at code licensed with BSD/MIT. And unfortunately patent trolls are a reality. If you prefer more permissive licenses, then go for the Apache 2.0 ;-)
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    If a software author wants for people to use/distribute his software under a specific license, that's his prerogative. We're discussing the merits of particular licenses, particularly their impact on the software world, so this is kind of tautological, don't you think? In any case, I was not aware of that difference between Apache and BSD, so you have my sincere thanks for pointing that out. I've got a few things on Github to modify methinks...
    - bad_user 12y ago
      Well, I wanted to point out that as far as open-source goes, it has a pretty good definition and in the larger scheme of things, the actual open-source license used does not matter, all that matters is to get people to contribute. But people contribute when they've got reasons to do so and many people believe in copyleft. And the GPL is an interesting case, because it happened because its author hated copyright, so he decided to turn it on its head and use it to his advantage. And in a world in which copyright (and other IP laws) keep getting worse, copyleft gets even more relevant. To the issue of whether copyleft did any good versus MIT/BSD, well, would have Apple open-sourced WebKit if it wasn't for KHTML's LGPL license? I'm inclined towards no, but truth is, we'll never know. On GCC on the other hand, its authors not only used GPL, but actually made it hard in the actual code for proprietary extensions to happen. This might have been good 15-20 years ago, when the landscape was dominated by proprietary compilers, but now I consider that we're better off with LLVM taking off.
rdtsc 12y ago
Same here. I think most people don't realize what the world was like before open source and free software. Just using someone's code or sharing code for free was pretty radical. Now it seems obvious that you can use a free compiler. A free Unix-like OS. That was not the case. And people forget that. I think GPL, GNU toolkit, Linux are a big part of that. I think this is a much better and interesting world than it was before. That is why I support it.
- marrs 12y ago
  It taught me how to code.

Rusky 12y ago

What I don't get about this thread is why people who dislike the GPL would want it to fail here. I'm not the GPL's biggest fan, but why would we want to weaken copyright in this way?

justincormack 12y ago
It is not about weakening copyright. It is about reducing uncertainty about what the GPL means. GPLv2 is not very well drafted in terms of linking and derived works, and v3 is not much better. And software like Linux is stuck with GPLv2 pretty much forever.
- Rusky 12y ago
  Right, it's not immediately about copyright, per se. But the GPL relies entirely on copyright and if this ends up setting a precedent that you can't use copyright to enforce the (unfortunately vague?) terms of the GPL, that weakens copyright.
  - nymisunderrated 12y ago
    It's a good question if it does "weaken copyright". That would be a good thing, and a primer in thirty+ years, because it would equally reduce its breadth from proprietary applications. By what I see now (from old and new, but cursory public information), most likely, VMWare has too big resources for a long protracted legal battle, and I don't know if Conservancy can stand to it. That's not the same thing at all.

sanderjd 12y ago

For me, it's a matter of goals. I think the GPL makes a lot of sense for creating a free software ecosystem, like GNU and Linux have done. But when I consider creating an open source project, that is just not usually my goal. Rather, I want my solution to whatever problem to be useful to as many people as possible, whether they're building something open or proprietary. Perhaps one day I'll create something that I envision fostering an ecosystem of derived works and many contributors, and I may well choose GPL for it, but until then, the more permissive licenses are more in line with my goals.

rayiner 12y ago
The GPL is useful when you want to build a community of open source code, but not useful when you want to work for someone else for free. Arguably, that's the whole point.
- sanderjd 12y ago
  I'm not sure if you were summarizing or disagreeing with me, but I mostly agree with you, except that I think the "work for someone else for free" part is spin. It's not totally inaccurate, it just mischaracterizes the goals and practicalities of the work. The goal isn't to make something useful to commercial entities, it's to make something useful to anybody (or, more likely in my case, nobody). Working for someone also implies that they control the design and direction of the work, but one of the huge draws of open source work is that you are able to design and direct it however you want. If someone likes your design and direction, they can use it, but they can't tell you what to do.
- halostatue 12y ago
  Sometimes it’s also about being able to reuse work that you’ve done elsewhere for other employers. My current employer is friendly to the idea of me open sourcing a lot of the ancillary work that I’ve done that may be useful to other projects. Using the GNU GPL family of licenses would not even be on our radar. (It isn’t core code, and if we accepted contributions from elsewhere, it would then start to have the ability to taint our code.)
- 12y ago

Radim 12y ago

I generally find that the GPL hatred comes a lot from academic circles. Lots of university-produced software prefers BSD or MIT, and looks down on GPL/LGPL. I guess when you're paid from other people's taxes, you don't care as much about perceived "fairness", or that businesses don't take advantage of your work. It may even be the right thing to do. In fact, companies using your "free", no-strings-attached SW may be a bonus in that situation. It looks good on academic grant applications. Of course, the word "free" here means "paid for by other people", as it often does.

halostatue 12y ago
I’m not an academic. I do not use the GNU GPL for my code (unless required to by other licences because I am deriving my work from someone else) and I do what I can to discourage people from choosing it “by default”. My dislike for the GNU GPL comes mostly from the dishonest marketing (“free”, “freedom”) and dissembling about the licence (it is “viral” and that’s a feature). I also do not particularly care to replicate the FSF’s peculiar political rant when I distribute software. However, if you want to enforce “share-alike” semantics for what you write, and you want the widest composability of your software with other “share-alike” software, by all means choose the GNU GPL (prefer locked to v2 unless you really care about “TiVo”-isation, then lock to v3—never choose the “at your discretion, a later version” clause). If you want to discourage SaaS companies from forming around your software, choose the GNU AGPL. If you want to enforce limited “share-alike” semantics at the link boundary, choose the GNU LGPL•. • Warning to people using GNU LGPL software, though: it doesn’t mean what you think it means. You still have to provide recipients of your combined software the means to relink your software with modified versions of the GNU LGPL libraries. If, however, you write software to scratch your own itch and don’t care what people do with it after you’ve written it? Pick a different licence: MIT, BSD, Apache, Artistic, whatever. You can even pick the GNU GPL family of licences if you really want that, but at least know why you’re picking it.
scott_s 12y ago
I have not seen "GPL hatred" from academic circles; in my time in academia, I did not hear anyone disparage the GPL. In fact, I don't think most academics had a deep understanding of the difference between open source licenses. That luxury is possible when you're not running a business. I do, however, associate GPL resistance (not "hatred") from for-profit businesses.

BrainInAJar 12y ago

MPL will protect your code's openness as well, but still play nicely with other open source (eg, FreeBSD can pull in your code.) GPL serves to prevent anyone with other ideas on what open source means from collaborating with you

mlinksva 12y ago
Interesting, I didn't realize FreeBSD will take MPL code. Do you have a reference or example of this policy? (I did a naive search and couldn't find.)
- BrainInAJar 12y ago
  ZFS & DTrace are under a MPL-like license (CDDL), they ship with FreeBSD, and are in a "third party, probably violates the GPL" ghetto on Linux

the_mitsuhiko 12y ago

> It will protect your freedom as an open source developer. It protects your freedom as a free software developer maybe. People that do not release under the GPL do not really benefit from it.

Aldo_MX 12y ago

I'll be honest, the GPL as-is is too obtuse to the extent it fails it's own premise of "This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful". I agree with the principle that if you make improvements to the original work you MUST contribute those improvements back, and I like the fact that the GPL protects and enforces this principle. But other restrictions leaves much to be desired because they seem too idealistic to be feasible (ex. distributing your entire work under the GPL). I don't condone breaking the GPL if you disagree with it, but I believe that free and non-free software should not be mutually exclusive as the GPL intends to be; real life is not black and white.

pmontra 12y ago
I think it's difficult to draw a line between improvements and derivative work (what your "entire work") could be. The GPL plays safe and requires redistribution of everything. I'd play safe too, with BSD I could end up seeing a company getting rich starting with my code and locking me outside of any improvements. I'm not so generous.