9 ms·

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 max

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?
    - pvg 12y ago
      This is well-understood and not thorny at all. Neither of your examples are 'distribution'. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePos...
    - davidgerard 12y ago
      I remember when people not getting the GPL was entire threads on Slashdot ...
    - lazaroclapp 12y ago
      Why would uploading code to EC2 be distribution? You are not giving your program to Amazon to use (unless their ToS have something foul in them), you are contracting Amazon to run your program on your behalf. Put another way, if you take your GPLed code, burn it into a cd and mail it to yourself through DHL or Fedex, you are not "distributing" the code to Fedex.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Why would uploading code to EC2 be distribution? It might not be distribution, but the GPLv3 terms are mostly triggered by "conveying", and it is clearly "conveying" as defined in the GPLv3. > You are not giving your program to Amazon to use The GPLv3 definition of conveying keys on whether you enable another party to "make or receive copies" of the work, not whether it is for that other party's use. Even if the copies are for your use, if you enable another party to make or receive copies, you are conveying, and are covered by the GPLv3 provisions applicable to the form (verbatim, modified source, or non-source) you are conveying the copy in. > Put another way, if you take your GPLed code, burn it into a cd and mail it to yourself through DHL or Fedex, you are not "distributing" the code to Fedex. Mailing your GPLed code through DHL or FedEx does transfers physical media through their hands, it does not enable or require them to make or receive copies of the code. So, true, it is not conveying, and it is also unlike uploading to a third party, which always enables that third party to make or receive copies.
        12y ago
- belorn 12y ago
  > "You can't take away any freedoms of something that is released freely" Sure you can. If you release a animal to run freely in the wild, I can take away its freedom by shooting it. The only way to maintain its freedom is by also restricting my and others freedom to hunt it down. The way we describe this is liberty, ie everyone can live in freedom under common restrictions; restrictions which purpose is to maintain the freedom of everyone.
oddevan 12y ago
> The only freedom the GPL does not provide is the freedom to take these freedoms away from future users. And that's the crux there. It's not always malicious (I want to make a proprietary extension and sell it), sometimes it's a fact of the environment (I have to link this against a proprietary library in order to deploy to this hardware). Some will say "find a new environment that isn't developer-hostile", and others will say "find code that doesn't impose those restrictions." It's not black-and-white. I have the greatest respect for RMS and the FSF. I compromise on my freedom as a developer all the time; I know that. But thanks to the ideals that RMS puts forth, I know that I'm compromising. I know what the risks are to using BSD instead of GPL, and so I weigh those risks.
- belorn 12y ago
  > not always malicious (I want to make a proprietary extension and sell it You say its not malicious, but then I see the misery and harm proprietary copyright licenses do. People use it to sue 7-year old girls, send people to jail for years, and put others into debt for millions, all for the simple act of someone helping an other fellow human. We could make a copyright license which only condition is that you can not sue someone, or that you can only sue companies and not people, or some other from of harm reduction. I doubt companies would prefer it, as without the threat and punishment from copyright lawsuits many argue that you can not earn money on making software. They argue that you must have the malicious aspects, or its not free enough to be useful.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    You say its not malicious, but then I see the misery and harm proprietary copyright licenses do. Abuse of a tool is not an argument against the non-abusive uses of a tool. I was going to say more here, but this really distills everything down. People are going to find a way to be bastards to each other, and the FSF pipe dream of everything being Free does not change that.
    - davidgerard 12y ago
      This does not, however, oblige us to hand these people sticks, particularly the ones they have already shown great fondness for abusing. Repeated and egregious abuse of a tool - the thing being discussed in the comment you are replying to - is in fact an argument against the tool.
xamuel 12y ago
I want to share my code with everyone. That includes: * (1st-order capitalists) People who want to make a buck * (2nd-order capitalists) People who don't mind if 1st-order capitalists use their work * (3rd-order capitalists) People who don't mind if 2nd-order capitalists use their work * (Etc., nth-order capitalists for all n) That makes me an ωth-order capitalist. Unfortunately, GPL is anti-ωth-order capitalist (Proof: Induction). I can't ever use it unless I'm willing to kick people under the bus who I'd rather allow to use my code.
- belorn 12y ago
  Nothing prevents you from licensing your code BSD while using GPL-licensed software. You can use what ever library or software out there which is GPL and if you always use BSD or MIT license, you can share your code that you wrote with whoever and for whatever purpose. People who receive it can then use your code for what ever, and only need to follow the GPL if that also use the code which you have not written.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - xamuel 12y ago
    That doesn't make any sense. If people could take GPL code and switch it to MIT license then GPL would be meaningless: 1. Take the GPL project you want 2. Add a comment somewhere, publish the resulting derivative under MIT 3. Use it however you want, while flipping off Gnu Sure, I can (and do) use GPL software, personally. But I can't use GPL sourcecode in projects I publicly release. If I did, that part of my sourcecode would have to be GPLed. * Which means it couldn't be used by anyone (set A) who can't use GPL. * Which means it couldn't be used by anyone (set B) who wants to share with people in set A. * Which means it couldn't be used by anyone (set C) who wants to share with people in set B. * So on forever.
    - gillianseed 12y ago
      >That doesn't make any sense. If people could take GPL code and switch it to MIT license then GPL would be meaningless He never said that, he said you can you can combine your permissively licensed code with GPL licensed code and _your_ code will still be available as permissive. You stated that you wanted to share _your_ code with 'everyone', nothing prevents you from doing that. Someone else's GPL licensed code is NOT _your_ code just because you decide to use it.
swatow 12y ago
You are giving the FSF point of view, but that is not the only point of view. The post is correct that the practical effect of the GPL is to require giving back to the community. Freedom is a loaded word, and I think most people don't share the FSF's definition of freedom. I would rephrase your statement as "the GPL is designed to globally maximise the ability to use, modify and distribute a piece of software. The only ability the GPL does not provide is the ability to take these abilities from future uses." I personally think that this ability to modify software (and scrutinize its source code) is very important when it comes to the operating system. For javascript code sandboxed in the browser, it is much less important (sure, javascript can still do unexpected things, like tracking users, but this is still much much less than what could be done with full user level access, and these are things that can be fixed). So I support GPL for operating systems, encourage open source for other software, but don't object to closed source when the danger is low.
- TuringTest 12y ago
  "the GPL is designed to globally maximise the ability to use, modify and distribute a piece of software. The only ability the GPL does not provide is the ability to take these abilities from future uses." I would summarize that as "the GPL is designed to globally maximize knowledge about the software, and the ability to use that knowledge". The part about forcing published forks to release their source code is a consequence of that purpose: hiding the source would reduce the amount of knowledge, and thus it is forbidden.

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?
  - pvg 12y ago
    This is well-understood and not thorny at all. Neither of your examples are 'distribution'. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePos...
  - davidgerard 12y ago
    I remember when people not getting the GPL was entire threads on Slashdot ...
  - lazaroclapp 12y ago
    Why would uploading code to EC2 be distribution? You are not giving your program to Amazon to use (unless their ToS have something foul in them), you are contracting Amazon to run your program on your behalf. Put another way, if you take your GPLed code, burn it into a cd and mail it to yourself through DHL or Fedex, you are not "distributing" the code to Fedex.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Why would uploading code to EC2 be distribution? It might not be distribution, but the GPLv3 terms are mostly triggered by "conveying", and it is clearly "conveying" as defined in the GPLv3. > You are not giving your program to Amazon to use The GPLv3 definition of conveying keys on whether you enable another party to "make or receive copies" of the work, not whether it is for that other party's use. Even if the copies are for your use, if you enable another party to make or receive copies, you are conveying, and are covered by the GPLv3 provisions applicable to the form (verbatim, modified source, or non-source) you are conveying the copy in. > Put another way, if you take your GPLed code, burn it into a cd and mail it to yourself through DHL or Fedex, you are not "distributing" the code to Fedex. Mailing your GPLed code through DHL or FedEx does transfers physical media through their hands, it does not enable or require them to make or receive copies of the code. So, true, it is not conveying, and it is also unlike uploading to a third party, which always enables that third party to make or receive copies.
      - 12y ago
belorn 12y ago
> "You can't take away any freedoms of something that is released freely" Sure you can. If you release a animal to run freely in the wild, I can take away its freedom by shooting it. The only way to maintain its freedom is by also restricting my and others freedom to hunt it down. The way we describe this is liberty, ie everyone can live in freedom under common restrictions; restrictions which purpose is to maintain the freedom of everyone.

oddevan 12y ago

> The only freedom the GPL does not provide is the freedom to take these freedoms away from future users. And that's the crux there. It's not always malicious (I want to make a proprietary extension and sell it), sometimes it's a fact of the environment (I have to link this against a proprietary library in order to deploy to this hardware). Some will say "find a new environment that isn't developer-hostile", and others will say "find code that doesn't impose those restrictions." It's not black-and-white. I have the greatest respect for RMS and the FSF. I compromise on my freedom as a developer all the time; I know that. But thanks to the ideals that RMS puts forth, I know that I'm compromising. I know what the risks are to using BSD instead of GPL, and so I weigh those risks.

belorn 12y ago
> not always malicious (I want to make a proprietary extension and sell it You say its not malicious, but then I see the misery and harm proprietary copyright licenses do. People use it to sue 7-year old girls, send people to jail for years, and put others into debt for millions, all for the simple act of someone helping an other fellow human. We could make a copyright license which only condition is that you can not sue someone, or that you can only sue companies and not people, or some other from of harm reduction. I doubt companies would prefer it, as without the threat and punishment from copyright lawsuits many argue that you can not earn money on making software. They argue that you must have the malicious aspects, or its not free enough to be useful.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  You say its not malicious, but then I see the misery and harm proprietary copyright licenses do. Abuse of a tool is not an argument against the non-abusive uses of a tool. I was going to say more here, but this really distills everything down. People are going to find a way to be bastards to each other, and the FSF pipe dream of everything being Free does not change that.
  - davidgerard 12y ago
    This does not, however, oblige us to hand these people sticks, particularly the ones they have already shown great fondness for abusing. Repeated and egregious abuse of a tool - the thing being discussed in the comment you are replying to - is in fact an argument against the tool.

xamuel 12y ago

I want to share my code with everyone. That includes: * (1st-order capitalists) People who want to make a buck * (2nd-order capitalists) People who don't mind if 1st-order capitalists use their work * (3rd-order capitalists) People who don't mind if 2nd-order capitalists use their work * (Etc., nth-order capitalists for all n) That makes me an ωth-order capitalist. Unfortunately, GPL is anti-ωth-order capitalist (Proof: Induction). I can't ever use it unless I'm willing to kick people under the bus who I'd rather allow to use my code.

belorn 12y ago
Nothing prevents you from licensing your code BSD while using GPL-licensed software. You can use what ever library or software out there which is GPL and if you always use BSD or MIT license, you can share your code that you wrote with whoever and for whatever purpose. People who receive it can then use your code for what ever, and only need to follow the GPL if that also use the code which you have not written.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- xamuel 12y ago
  That doesn't make any sense. If people could take GPL code and switch it to MIT license then GPL would be meaningless: 1. Take the GPL project you want 2. Add a comment somewhere, publish the resulting derivative under MIT 3. Use it however you want, while flipping off Gnu Sure, I can (and do) use GPL software, personally. But I can't use GPL sourcecode in projects I publicly release. If I did, that part of my sourcecode would have to be GPLed. * Which means it couldn't be used by anyone (set A) who can't use GPL. * Which means it couldn't be used by anyone (set B) who wants to share with people in set A. * Which means it couldn't be used by anyone (set C) who wants to share with people in set B. * So on forever.
  - gillianseed 12y ago
    >That doesn't make any sense. If people could take GPL code and switch it to MIT license then GPL would be meaningless He never said that, he said you can you can combine your permissively licensed code with GPL licensed code and _your_ code will still be available as permissive. You stated that you wanted to share _your_ code with 'everyone', nothing prevents you from doing that. Someone else's GPL licensed code is NOT _your_ code just because you decide to use it.

swatow 12y ago

You are giving the FSF point of view, but that is not the only point of view. The post is correct that the practical effect of the GPL is to require giving back to the community. Freedom is a loaded word, and I think most people don't share the FSF's definition of freedom. I would rephrase your statement as "the GPL is designed to globally maximise the ability to use, modify and distribute a piece of software. The only ability the GPL does not provide is the ability to take these abilities from future uses." I personally think that this ability to modify software (and scrutinize its source code) is very important when it comes to the operating system. For javascript code sandboxed in the browser, it is much less important (sure, javascript can still do unexpected things, like tracking users, but this is still much much less than what could be done with full user level access, and these are things that can be fixed). So I support GPL for operating systems, encourage open source for other software, but don't object to closed source when the danger is low.

TuringTest 12y ago
"the GPL is designed to globally maximise the ability to use, modify and distribute a piece of software. The only ability the GPL does not provide is the ability to take these abilities from future uses." I would summarize that as "the GPL is designed to globally maximize knowledge about the software, and the ability to use that knowledge". The part about forcing published forks to release their source code is a consequence of that purpose: hiding the source would reduce the amount of knowledge, and thus it is forbidden.