4 ms·

Restricts what freedom? If there indeed is a meaningful restriction, you should be able to articulate it in words.

by shiggerino 12y ago

snikeris 12y ago
The freedom to modify the code w/out having to share those modifications.
- digi_owl 12y ago
  In essence it "restricts" your ability to profit from others effort.
  - shiggerino 12y ago
    It doesn't even do that. I profit plenty from others' GPL-licensed effort. The difference is I don't feel entitled to restrict others from profiting from the effort that went into creating the combined work.
- shiggerino 12y ago
  There is no such restriction. Freedom 3 is just that, a freedom, not a duty to release your changes to the public.
sangnoir 12y ago
The freedom to deprive end-users the same rights*[1] the distributor got, of course. [1] The right to view the source and make changes as you see fit.
Sanddancer 12y ago
The freedom to profit from code in the same way as the author. Oracle, for one, has done marvelous things in ensuring that their JVM is the only one that people use by GPLing it and convincing IBM to stop contributing to the more open Apache Harmony project. Additionally, the same enterprise can do things with MySQL that no other vendor can, again putting other entities at a distinct disadvantage. The GPL is very weaponizeable if you want to ensure competitors are always a step behind you.
- Shamanmuni 12y ago
  I don't know about the JVM, but what you mention about MySQL has to do not strictly with the GPL but with it being dual licensed (GPL and propietary) and as a result many Linux distributions like Red Hat, OpenSUSE, Fedora and Arch decided to make MariaDB -which is only GPL, compatible with MySQL and has more features- the default and it's readily available in most -if not all- distros, Windows and Mac OS X. So I would take the part of "competitors always a step behind you" with a very big grain of salt.
- shiggerino 12y ago
  How is Apache Harmony more open? Easier to get in extensions without going through all the committees? You can do that with a fork of the OpenJDK too, nothing in the GPL preventing that. As for MySQL, I don't see how the existence of a proprietary version of MySQL is somehow the GPL's fault. The users would be even more at a disadvantage if the proprietary version was the only one that existed and there was no free version, so the existence of the GPL version is a net benefit for everyone. Not that it's a particularly good idea to buy a proprietary license or even contribute code to Oracle. PostgreSQL will treat you much more fairly. It doesn't require copyright attribution from their contributors, it's governed by a 501(c)(3) charity in the US and a similar non-profit in the EU rather than a company that only looks out for itself. There is nothing wrong with making a profit with software, but signing an expensive restrictive EULA for a database is just a bad deal, whether you're a small startup or a major corporation.

Restricts what freedom? If there indeed is a meaningful restriction, you should be able to articulate it in words.

snikeris 12y ago

The freedom to modify the code w/out having to share those modifications.

digi_owl 12y ago
In essence it "restricts" your ability to profit from others effort.
- shiggerino 12y ago
  It doesn't even do that. I profit plenty from others' GPL-licensed effort. The difference is I don't feel entitled to restrict others from profiting from the effort that went into creating the combined work.
shiggerino 12y ago
There is no such restriction. Freedom 3 is just that, a freedom, not a duty to release your changes to the public.

sangnoir 12y ago

The freedom to deprive end-users the same rights*[1] the distributor got, of course. [1] The right to view the source and make changes as you see fit.

Sanddancer 12y ago

The freedom to profit from code in the same way as the author. Oracle, for one, has done marvelous things in ensuring that their JVM is the only one that people use by GPLing it and convincing IBM to stop contributing to the more open Apache Harmony project. Additionally, the same enterprise can do things with MySQL that no other vendor can, again putting other entities at a distinct disadvantage. The GPL is very weaponizeable if you want to ensure competitors are always a step behind you.

Shamanmuni 12y ago
I don't know about the JVM, but what you mention about MySQL has to do not strictly with the GPL but with it being dual licensed (GPL and propietary) and as a result many Linux distributions like Red Hat, OpenSUSE, Fedora and Arch decided to make MariaDB -which is only GPL, compatible with MySQL and has more features- the default and it's readily available in most -if not all- distros, Windows and Mac OS X. So I would take the part of "competitors always a step behind you" with a very big grain of salt.
shiggerino 12y ago
How is Apache Harmony more open? Easier to get in extensions without going through all the committees? You can do that with a fork of the OpenJDK too, nothing in the GPL preventing that. As for MySQL, I don't see how the existence of a proprietary version of MySQL is somehow the GPL's fault. The users would be even more at a disadvantage if the proprietary version was the only one that existed and there was no free version, so the existence of the GPL version is a net benefit for everyone. Not that it's a particularly good idea to buy a proprietary license or even contribute code to Oracle. PostgreSQL will treat you much more fairly. It doesn't require copyright attribution from their contributors, it's governed by a 501(c)(3) charity in the US and a similar non-profit in the EU rather than a company that only looks out for itself. There is nothing wrong with making a profit with software, but signing an expensive restrictive EULA for a database is just a bad deal, whether you're a small startup or a major corporation.