12 ms·

Honestly, I don't understand the hate for GPL. Someone spends time and energy making something, and releases it for free, and for everyone to use. That person h

by wz1000 12y ago

Honestly, I don't understand the hate for GPL. Someone spends time and energy making something, and releases it for free, and for everyone to use. That person has every right to decide how their software will be distributed. The GPL only ensures that anyone who uses and modifies the software has to give back to the community that spawned it in the first place.

jordigh 12y ago
Not even give back to the community... just give back to the next person they decide to give their modified version to, paying it forward. They're not under any obligation to give their modifications to everyone.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  Good point. That is often one of the most misunderstood aspects of GPL. You have to provide the source code to the user you are selling the product to. It doesn't mean you have to necessarily give it to the whole world or even the original writer of the code.
  - JetSpiegel 12y ago
    But the people you give the source to can redistribute it, so it's almost a meaningless distinction.
    - jordigh 12y ago
      Not necessarily. The source code might only be of interest to their competitors, not of general interest. They might be at a disadvantage for redistributing some development that they paid for and is giving them an advantage.
- davidgerard 12y ago
  Indeed. There's a roaring trade in WordPress themes, even though they're all GPL (or copyright violations). (These frequently license the assets proprietary and call the result an aggregation, but you can still take a theme with cool functions and release your own version with your own assets.)
gknoy 12y ago
I think it's important to separate the idea of the GPL (which IMO is awesome!), and it's key distinction between free as in not-paying and free as in freedom, from the zealous nature of its creator. I believe that there are many benefits from GPL, and the entire idea of Free software. I don't really feel compelled by the idea that all the bits I write should be that way, or that I should restrict the bits I use to Free ones -- partly because I really like good graphics card drivers in linux. (I realize it's selfish, but it also feels pragmatic.) I am profoundly grateful for RMS' insight and creations, even though I don't always agree with his opinions.
- nickysielicki 12y ago
  There's no reason that you cannot have really good open source drivers. In fact, most of the ones you use are. The problem is that these corporations feel that providing insight to their competitors on how they're doing things is a bigger issue, and they keep them closed.
torrent-of-ions 12y ago
It's not really about "giving back". There's no obligation to give anything back at all and neither should there be. Rather, the GPL is designed to globally maximise the freedom to use, modify and distribute a piece of software. The only freedom the GPL does not provide is the freedom to take these freedoms away from future users.
- pavs 12y ago
  Brilliantly said, I never had anyone explain GPL to me in such a beautiful way.
- legulere 12y ago
  I don't like this formulation. You can't take away any freedoms of something that is released freely. The only thing GPL guarantees is that derivatives are also free. Also if you speak about "a piece of software" as in one piece of software, then the GPL doesn't maximize the freedoms. What the GPL does, is set a few (people from the BSD crowd would say restricted) freedoms and try to spread them as far as possible by making people license their own source code they wrote under GPL if they want to work with a GPL licensed codebase.
  - timonovici 12y ago
    > What the GPL does, is set a few (people from the BSD crowd would say restricted) freedoms and try to spread them as far as possible by making people license their own source code they wrote under GPL if they want to work with a GPL licensed codebase. Not entirely true. You are only subject to GPL if you distribute the code you modify. If you keep it inside your company, or for yourself, or you run it on your servers, there nothing GPL will do to you.
    - TylerE 12y ago
      I think that's a much thornier problem than you acknowledge. If I give my modified-GPL code to my coworker bob is that distribution? If I upload to an EC2, is that distribution?
davidw 12y ago
> understand the hate for GPL Here's an attempt, although before I start, I don't hate the GPL at all. I think it's a clever hack, and a good license for some situations. Sometimes, as a practical matter, it is annoying: Sometimes, you work on proprietary code (as to why this is, here's one thing I wrote a few years back: http://journal.dedasys.com/2007/02/03/in-thrall-to-scarcity/ http://journal.dedasys.com/2007/02/03/in-thrall-to-scarcity/ but it's a long, involved discussion in and of itself!) and would like to integrate some small library that would make your life easier. If you can't use it, it's not really that big a deal, but if you can, great. Someone like myself, who greatly enjoys open source software will also be sure to be a 'good citizen', giving back any changes to that little library, even if we're not forced to. But if it's GPL, you just can't use it. If this is the genuine intent of the author, fair is fair and you move on. Sometimes though, people just slap the GPL on stuff without particularly considering the consequences. In some circumstances, BSD licensed code can attract more users, because they are able to use it in proprietary applications. If they 'get' open source, they'll still contribute back, causing the code to actually be more used and useful than if it were GPL and excluded from use by a company creating something it wants to make money with. (Ok, yes, you can make money with GPL stuff, but it's a lot more difficult than making money by simply selling something directly, and even that is not easy, as anyone who has tried to start a software business knows).
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  I do find it disappointing when someone intentionally makes work GPL without knowing the implications. The intention of GPL is very much to prevent use in proprietary software, and to make life more difficult for proprietary software users, while creating an ecosystem of software only usable by other Free Software. However, even RMS and the Free Software Foundation have explicitly acknowledged that there are cases where an all-permissive license like MIT or (2-clause or 3-clause) BSD makes sense; for instance, when implementing a free format to replace a proprietary one, such as Ogg Vorbis or WebM. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html for instance: "For these projects, widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software, and does more good than a copyleft on the project's code would do." (That page actually recommends Apache 2.0 now, which is GPLv3 but not GPLv2 compatible; it used to recommend GPLv2-compatible licenses, and personally I still do recommend using MIT when trying to promote the widest possible use.)
davidgerard 12y ago
>Honestly, I don't understand the hate for GPL. It takes away people's ability to say "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine." That's enough reason for those who care about freedom for themselves, but aren't really all that interested in freedom for others. These people were deeply upset when the GPL consistently won every time it went to court.
- s73v3r 12y ago
  Nobody required you to use someone else's work.
baddox 12y ago
> That person has every right to decide how their software will be distributed. That's the part I don't agree with. I like actually free software.
redwall_hp 12y ago
Once upon a time, I was in the camp who disliked the GPL. Because I didn't understand it. Maybe I just wasn't far enough into development to appreciate the limitations of important tools and libraries being proprietary, or maybe I wasn't disillusioned enough with American capitalist ideals. Anyway, I read "Free Software, Free Society," a collection of essays by Richard Stallman, and it completely changed my mind on the matter. (The book is available free in PDF form from GNU.) We all build on the work of others' before us, and limiting those who come after, taking away the freedom of the end user and future developers who play by the same rules, is shitty. This is the simple premise of the GPL: if those who develop proprietary software won't let end users and other developers benefit from their code, we don't let them benefit from our Free code. GPL is all about protecting the end user's freedom to use and modify the software.
swatow 12y ago
I don't mind if other people use the GPL, but I think it's inappropriate for certain kinds of work, including most work sponsored by the government and universities. Suppose the government sponsors a numerical software library. If that library is GPL licensed, that means that proprietary software like Matlab, cannot use it. Is this a good thing? If we think that there should be strong encouragement for all software to become open source, maybe yes. But I believe there is no reason to want most software to be open source. So releasing things like this under the GPL just means that less people can use it than otherwise, and so the effort has been less efficient. I would choose a permissive license for everything except operating systems (which I think should be open source, for security reasons), and end user products (like emacs), which need to have the community protected from proprietary forks. Libraries should mostly be licensed with permissive licenses, because that maximizes the number of people who can use it.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  Or Matlab can take the code, fork it, improve the version way better than the existing BSD licensed code and never return any changes back. Eventually the only version containing the desired numerical algorithms with better performance will the be commercial version.

by wz1000 12y ago

jordigh 12y ago

Not even give back to the community... just give back to the next person they decide to give their modified version to, paying it forward. They're not under any obligation to give their modifications to everyone.

rdtsc 12y ago
Good point. That is often one of the most misunderstood aspects of GPL. You have to provide the source code to the user you are selling the product to. It doesn't mean you have to necessarily give it to the whole world or even the original writer of the code.
- JetSpiegel 12y ago
  But the people you give the source to can redistribute it, so it's almost a meaningless distinction.
  - jordigh 12y ago
    Not necessarily. The source code might only be of interest to their competitors, not of general interest. They might be at a disadvantage for redistributing some development that they paid for and is giving them an advantage.
davidgerard 12y ago
Indeed. There's a roaring trade in WordPress themes, even though they're all GPL (or copyright violations). (These frequently license the assets proprietary and call the result an aggregation, but you can still take a theme with cool functions and release your own version with your own assets.)

gknoy 12y ago

I think it's important to separate the idea of the GPL (which IMO is awesome!), and it's key distinction between free as in not-paying and free as in freedom, from the zealous nature of its creator. I believe that there are many benefits from GPL, and the entire idea of Free software. I don't really feel compelled by the idea that all the bits I write should be that way, or that I should restrict the bits I use to Free ones -- partly because I really like good graphics card drivers in linux. (I realize it's selfish, but it also feels pragmatic.) I am profoundly grateful for RMS' insight and creations, even though I don't always agree with his opinions.

nickysielicki 12y ago
There's no reason that you cannot have really good open source drivers. In fact, most of the ones you use are. The problem is that these corporations feel that providing insight to their competitors on how they're doing things is a bigger issue, and they keep them closed.

torrent-of-ions 12y ago

It's not really about "giving back". There's no obligation to give anything back at all and neither should there be. Rather, the GPL is designed to globally maximise the freedom to use, modify and distribute a piece of software. The only freedom the GPL does not provide is the freedom to take these freedoms away from future users.

pavs 12y ago
Brilliantly said, I never had anyone explain GPL to me in such a beautiful way.
legulere 12y ago
I don't like this formulation. You can't take away any freedoms of something that is released freely. The only thing GPL guarantees is that derivatives are also free. Also if you speak about "a piece of software" as in one piece of software, then the GPL doesn't maximize the freedoms. What the GPL does, is set a few (people from the BSD crowd would say restricted) freedoms and try to spread them as far as possible by making people license their own source code they wrote under GPL if they want to work with a GPL licensed codebase.
- timonovici 12y ago
  > What the GPL does, is set a few (people from the BSD crowd would say restricted) freedoms and try to spread them as far as possible by making people license their own source code they wrote under GPL if they want to work with a GPL licensed codebase. Not entirely true. You are only subject to GPL if you distribute the code you modify. If you keep it inside your company, or for yourself, or you run it on your servers, there nothing GPL will do to you.
  - TylerE 12y ago
    I think that's a much thornier problem than you acknowledge. If I give my modified-GPL code to my coworker bob is that distribution? If I upload to an EC2, is that distribution?

davidw 12y ago

> understand the hate for GPL Here's an attempt, although before I start, I don't hate the GPL at all. I think it's a clever hack, and a good license for some situations. Sometimes, as a practical matter, it is annoying: Sometimes, you work on proprietary code (as to why this is, here's one thing I wrote a few years back: http://journal.dedasys.com/2007/02/03/in-thrall-to-scarcity/ http://journal.dedasys.com/2007/02/03/in-thrall-to-scarcity/ but it's a long, involved discussion in and of itself!) and would like to integrate some small library that would make your life easier. If you can't use it, it's not really that big a deal, but if you can, great. Someone like myself, who greatly enjoys open source software will also be sure to be a 'good citizen', giving back any changes to that little library, even if we're not forced to. But if it's GPL, you just can't use it. If this is the genuine intent of the author, fair is fair and you move on. Sometimes though, people just slap the GPL on stuff without particularly considering the consequences. In some circumstances, BSD licensed code can attract more users, because they are able to use it in proprietary applications. If they 'get' open source, they'll still contribute back, causing the code to actually be more used and useful than if it were GPL and excluded from use by a company creating something it wants to make money with. (Ok, yes, you can make money with GPL stuff, but it's a lot more difficult than making money by simply selling something directly, and even that is not easy, as anyone who has tried to start a software business knows).

JoshTriplett 12y ago
I do find it disappointing when someone intentionally makes work GPL without knowing the implications. The intention of GPL is very much to prevent use in proprietary software, and to make life more difficult for proprietary software users, while creating an ecosystem of software only usable by other Free Software. However, even RMS and the Free Software Foundation have explicitly acknowledged that there are cases where an all-permissive license like MIT or (2-clause or 3-clause) BSD makes sense; for instance, when implementing a free format to replace a proprietary one, such as Ogg Vorbis or WebM. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html for instance: "For these projects, widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software, and does more good than a copyleft on the project's code would do." (That page actually recommends Apache 2.0 now, which is GPLv3 but not GPLv2 compatible; it used to recommend GPLv2-compatible licenses, and personally I still do recommend using MIT when trying to promote the widest possible use.)

davidgerard 12y ago

>Honestly, I don't understand the hate for GPL. It takes away people's ability to say "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine." That's enough reason for those who care about freedom for themselves, but aren't really all that interested in freedom for others. These people were deeply upset when the GPL consistently won every time it went to court.

s73v3r 12y ago
Nobody required you to use someone else's work.

baddox 12y ago

> That person has every right to decide how their software will be distributed. That's the part I don't agree with. I like actually free software.

redwall_hp 12y ago

Once upon a time, I was in the camp who disliked the GPL. Because I didn't understand it. Maybe I just wasn't far enough into development to appreciate the limitations of important tools and libraries being proprietary, or maybe I wasn't disillusioned enough with American capitalist ideals. Anyway, I read "Free Software, Free Society," a collection of essays by Richard Stallman, and it completely changed my mind on the matter. (The book is available free in PDF form from GNU.) We all build on the work of others' before us, and limiting those who come after, taking away the freedom of the end user and future developers who play by the same rules, is shitty. This is the simple premise of the GPL: if those who develop proprietary software won't let end users and other developers benefit from their code, we don't let them benefit from our Free code. GPL is all about protecting the end user's freedom to use and modify the software.

swatow 12y ago

I don't mind if other people use the GPL, but I think it's inappropriate for certain kinds of work, including most work sponsored by the government and universities. Suppose the government sponsors a numerical software library. If that library is GPL licensed, that means that proprietary software like Matlab, cannot use it. Is this a good thing? If we think that there should be strong encouragement for all software to become open source, maybe yes. But I believe there is no reason to want most software to be open source. So releasing things like this under the GPL just means that less people can use it than otherwise, and so the effort has been less efficient. I would choose a permissive license for everything except operating systems (which I think should be open source, for security reasons), and end user products (like emacs), which need to have the community protected from proprietary forks. Libraries should mostly be licensed with permissive licenses, because that maximizes the number of people who can use it.

pjmlp 12y ago
Or Matlab can take the code, fork it, improve the version way better than the existing BSD licensed code and never return any changes back. Eventually the only version containing the desired numerical algorithms with better performance will the be commercial version.