7 ms·

That’s interesting indeed! I get the feeling that the GPL has lost a lot of mindshare over the last fifteen years or so.

by cpach 12y ago

tracker1 12y ago
I don't think that is the case at all... I think it depends on how high level you get... when you are building simple libraries in JS, that are abstractions on top of abstractions, MIT makes more sense because you can use it much more broadly. When you develop an operating system or driver, GPL makes far more sense because it won't lock things away... the closer you are to the hardware, the more GPL makes sense. The Apache-style licenses make a bit of sense for the stuff in between.
- quadrangle 12y ago
  Actually, the GPL makes total sense for end-user software. In fact, lots of people argue that it makes the most sense for downstream software since it protects user freedom and won't be used in a way where compatibility is an issue. But you're right it makes sense for the OS too. I guess the GPL just makes sense, period.
  - tracker1 12y ago
    Maybe it's just a matter of a complex system, vs something more simple... a JS module can be used much more broadly as MIT/BSD/ISC than with GPL... and for the most part, because JS is typically open (though obfuscated as an artifact of minification)... where something like a complete application, or OS would have a greater desire for those safeguards... A client library to an application, less so.
Aldo_MX 12y ago
It really depends on the scope of your project, if you are writing a library (for example), GPL is a bad choice because you limit your audience to strictly GPL grounds (unless you really want that). Many libraries have changed their licenses from GPL/LGPL to MIT because GPL/LGPL have proved to be troublesome for specific platforms (ex. Mobile Devices). There are many political views involved, but the reality is that users are the ones who suffer the consequences.
- wtbob 12y ago
  > …if you are writing a library (for example), GPL is a bad choice because you limit your audience to strictly GPL grounds (unless you really want that). Hence the existence of the LGPL. The initial L initially (heh) stood for 'Library,' although it now stands for 'Lesser.' > Many libraries have changed their licenses from GPL/LGPL to MIT because GPL/LGPL have proved to be troublesome for specific platforms (ex. Mobile Devices). How so, other than the fact that it can be difficult for users to install code that they've compiled themselves? > There are many political views involved, but the reality is that users are the ones who suffer the consequences. They certainly do, when they are unable to access, read, alter and deploy the code to the software they use.
  - Aldo_MX 12y ago
    > How so, other than the fact that it can be difficult for users to install code that they've compiled themselves? That's the point precisely, it increases the difficulty of anything related with the distribution of a project outside of GPL's grounds. An increased difficulty often translates in extra effort and lost resources (time, developers, money, etc.). The fact that many software authors are relicensing their work from GPL and similar licenses to MIT is because they're more interested in reducing to their users the hassle that the intricacies of the GPL family of licenses bring to them.
    - wtbob 12y ago
      But using MIT doesn't make it any easier for my users to install custom software on their devices. Any problems which exist compiling GPLed software apply to compile MIT-licensed software. There's simply no way that MIT-licensed software is superior from a user's perspective.
      - bronson 12y ago
        Sure, here's how: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure-iOS/issues/65 https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure-iOS/issues/65 Users care if they have to sideload an app because of a conflict between the App Store and a license's "additional restrictions" clause.
tedunangst 12y ago
As open source software itself has gained mindshare, more people have become aware that there's more to it than just Linux, er sorry, GNU/Linux, and those parts aren't all GPL. Anybody developing for the web was probably using some combination of perl, php, python, ruby, node, etc. and those parts, i.e., the parts they're directly exposed to, aren't GPL.
- cpach 12y ago
  Good point. And also, the type of software will influence the choice of license. E.g. when Facebook released the React library under the BSD license they most probably decided that the potential loss in competetive advantage would be unimportant. They could have gone with the GPL and then be able to offer a commercial license as well, but that would likely just be a distraction from Facebook’s core business. For a company’s main product offering it’s a different equation.
quadrangle 12y ago
The best overview of the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItFjEG3LaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItFjEG3LaA

That’s interesting indeed! I get the feeling that the GPL has lost a lot of mindshare over the last fifteen years or so.

by cpach 12y ago

That’s interesting indeed! I get the feeling that the GPL has lost a lot of mindshare over the last fifteen years or so.

tracker1 12y ago

I don't think that is the case at all... I think it depends on how high level you get... when you are building simple libraries in JS, that are abstractions on top of abstractions, MIT makes more sense because you can use it much more broadly. When you develop an operating system or driver, GPL makes far more sense because it won't lock things away... the closer you are to the hardware, the more GPL makes sense. The Apache-style licenses make a bit of sense for the stuff in between.

quadrangle 12y ago
Actually, the GPL makes total sense for end-user software. In fact, lots of people argue that it makes the most sense for downstream software since it protects user freedom and won't be used in a way where compatibility is an issue. But you're right it makes sense for the OS too. I guess the GPL just makes sense, period.
- tracker1 12y ago
  Maybe it's just a matter of a complex system, vs something more simple... a JS module can be used much more broadly as MIT/BSD/ISC than with GPL... and for the most part, because JS is typically open (though obfuscated as an artifact of minification)... where something like a complete application, or OS would have a greater desire for those safeguards... A client library to an application, less so.

Aldo_MX 12y ago

It really depends on the scope of your project, if you are writing a library (for example), GPL is a bad choice because you limit your audience to strictly GPL grounds (unless you really want that). Many libraries have changed their licenses from GPL/LGPL to MIT because GPL/LGPL have proved to be troublesome for specific platforms (ex. Mobile Devices). There are many political views involved, but the reality is that users are the ones who suffer the consequences.

wtbob 12y ago
> …if you are writing a library (for example), GPL is a bad choice because you limit your audience to strictly GPL grounds (unless you really want that). Hence the existence of the LGPL. The initial L initially (heh) stood for 'Library,' although it now stands for 'Lesser.' > Many libraries have changed their licenses from GPL/LGPL to MIT because GPL/LGPL have proved to be troublesome for specific platforms (ex. Mobile Devices). How so, other than the fact that it can be difficult for users to install code that they've compiled themselves? > There are many political views involved, but the reality is that users are the ones who suffer the consequences. They certainly do, when they are unable to access, read, alter and deploy the code to the software they use.
- Aldo_MX 12y ago
  > How so, other than the fact that it can be difficult for users to install code that they've compiled themselves? That's the point precisely, it increases the difficulty of anything related with the distribution of a project outside of GPL's grounds. An increased difficulty often translates in extra effort and lost resources (time, developers, money, etc.). The fact that many software authors are relicensing their work from GPL and similar licenses to MIT is because they're more interested in reducing to their users the hassle that the intricacies of the GPL family of licenses bring to them.
  - wtbob 12y ago
    But using MIT doesn't make it any easier for my users to install custom software on their devices. Any problems which exist compiling GPLed software apply to compile MIT-licensed software. There's simply no way that MIT-licensed software is superior from a user's perspective.
    - bronson 12y ago
      Sure, here's how: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure-iOS/issues/65 https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure-iOS/issues/65 Users care if they have to sideload an app because of a conflict between the App Store and a license's "additional restrictions" clause.

tedunangst 12y ago

As open source software itself has gained mindshare, more people have become aware that there's more to it than just Linux, er sorry, GNU/Linux, and those parts aren't all GPL. Anybody developing for the web was probably using some combination of perl, php, python, ruby, node, etc. and those parts, i.e., the parts they're directly exposed to, aren't GPL.

cpach 12y ago
Good point. And also, the type of software will influence the choice of license. E.g. when Facebook released the React library under the BSD license they most probably decided that the potential loss in competetive advantage would be unimportant. They could have gone with the GPL and then be able to offer a commercial license as well, but that would likely just be a distraction from Facebook’s core business. For a company’s main product offering it’s a different equation.

quadrangle 12y ago

The best overview of the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItFjEG3LaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItFjEG3LaA