5 ms·

On a site by and for programmers, it makes sense to discourage GPL in favor of permissive licenses.

by geon 12y ago

JoshTriplett 12y ago
The GPL is designed specifically for programmers, to ensure that they continue to have access to the source they need to hack on projects. Perhaps you meant on a site that's designed to also serve the needs of proprietary programmers, as opposed to just FOSS programmers?
- crazypyro 12y ago
  Considering the vast majority of programmers are proprietary programmers, at least for most of their week, I would consider the GPL not designed specifically for all programmers, but rather FOSS programmers, which is a minority on Github (and everywhere else, except highly specific communities). It makes sense for Github to promote other licenses.
  - JoshTriplett 12y ago
    I'm not arguing against that; it does indeed make sense that github promotes licenses that make life easier for proprietary software developers. I'm arguing against the assertion that "On a site by and for programmers, it makes sense to discourage GPL".
    - rifung 12y ago
      Why would programmers want to promote GPL, if they are not FOSS programmers? Do you consider "proprietary software developers" to be anyone who develops proprietary software, even if they contribute to open source as well? Because even if you did both I would think you would prefer non GPL code since you wouldn't be restricted in where you can use the code. So again it seems like "on a site by and for programmers it makes sense to discourage GPL" to me, for all except FOSS programmers.
      - JoshTriplett 12y ago
        > Why would programmers want to promote GPL, if they are not FOSS programmers? See vdaniuk's response in this same thread. Also, just because someone hacks on proprietary software doesn't mean their preference is to hack on proprietary software.
        rifung 12y ago
        Indeed my preference is definitely not to hack on proprietary software. However if I have to do the same thing I'd prefer not to have to choose and learn how to use two different libraries for example. As for vdaniuk's response, I read it and I dont see what value it adds. The comment basically said overall GPL is good, without any explanation. Obviously I dont disagree that its good but dont see why one would encourage it over MIT or BSD.
        JoshTriplett 12y ago
        > Indeed my preference is definitely not to hack on proprietary software. However if I have to do the same thing I'd prefer not to have to choose and learn how to use two different libraries for example. If there's a competing library under a permissive license with mostly the same functionality, the GPLed version doesn't really help. The point of the GPL is to create an ecosystem of software with compelling functionality that makes it much easier (and more fun) to hack on Free Software than proprietary software. And if you're hacking on proprietary software, repeatedly encountering GPLed libraries you could be using instead of recreating their functionality from scratch makes it easier to make a case to management that maybe the thing you're working on shouldn't be proprietary after all, as well as making it more tempting to change what you're working on.
        rifung 12y ago
        Point taken for making a case to management, although I wonder how often management would OK open sourcing.
        12y ago
  - Flimm 12y ago
    I program code that doesn't get distributed, would you count me as a "proprietary programmer"?
    - JoshTriplett 12y ago
      Personally, I wouldn't; there's a difference between "code that doesn't get distributed to anyone" and "code that gets distributed to some people in binary form but not in source form". If everyone who has a binary has source, everyone who has the software can hack on it. There's nothing wrong with choosing not to distribute software at all.
- brandonwamboldt 12y ago
  I think you're wrong. GPL is designed specifically for FOSS programmers who work only on FOSS projects. Legally, it's a restrictive license that limits options for developers who develop for a day job (for a company that keeps their software proprietary). The BSD and MIT licenses are far superior for the average working dev.
  - vdaniuk 12y ago
    Look, individually BSD and MIT licenses are superior for an "average" programmer, however all programmers and users would be much worse off without GPL.
  - marssaxman 12y ago
    What are you talking about? If I'm going to give my code away, it's because I want people to use it and share it, and letting downstream devs take my work and close it up for private gain would suck - especially since they're not obligated to share any of their private profits with me. No, if I'm going to give my code away, it's going to be "share and share alike", and that's what the GPL does best. How would it be "superior" to give my code away in a manner that lets other people take advantage without sharing?
    - maxlybbert 12y ago
      > If I'm going to give my code away, it's because I want people to use it and share it, and letting downstream devs take my work and close it up for private gain would suck - especially since they're not obligated to share any of their private profits with me. There are several reasons to give away code. It's perfectly reasonable to want people to share improvements with you, in which case the GPL is the right choice. But it's also reasonable to just not care what happens to the code after you send it off, in which case the GPL is likely to be as much a burden on you as on downstream programmers. Using Stallman's terminology, the GPL prevents people from boarding your code, but it also prevents them from using it with incompatible open source licenses (say, licenses with an advertising clause or a choice of law clause) without special permission. I just don't get all that worked up over whether somebody wants to use the Apache license version 1.1.
- maxlybbert 12y ago
  > Perhaps you meant on a site that's designed to also serve the needs of proprietary programmers, as opposed to just FOSS programmers? I've never noticed a shortage of GPLed projects on Github. But I think it would make sense for Github to nudge programmers into choosing licenses other than the GPL. When I start a project, I appreciate the ability to build off of permissively licensed libraries. At the least, it means that I don't have to worry about various pretend lawyers wasting my time with emails about how the GPL handles some edge case.
- dec0dedab0de 12y ago
  I think the GPL is more designed for end users who happen to know how to program.
guelo 12y ago
Permissiveness is relative. GPL restricts developers from restricting the code. GPL code cannot be restricted, it is and always will be free. GPL is extremely permissive to code. "You can take my code and do anything you want with it. A person that gets the code from you can also do anything they want with it."

On a site by and for programmers, it makes sense to discourage GPL in favor of permissive licenses.

by geon 12y ago

On a site by and for programmers, it makes sense to discourage GPL in favor of permissive licenses.

The GPL is designed specifically for programmers, to ensure that they continue to have access to the source they need to hack on projects. Perhaps you meant on a site that's designed to also serve the needs of proprietary programmers, as opposed to just FOSS programmers?

crazypyro 12y ago
Considering the vast majority of programmers are proprietary programmers, at least for most of their week, I would consider the GPL not designed specifically for all programmers, but rather FOSS programmers, which is a minority on Github (and everywhere else, except highly specific communities). It makes sense for Github to promote other licenses.
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  I'm not arguing against that; it does indeed make sense that github promotes licenses that make life easier for proprietary software developers. I'm arguing against the assertion that "On a site by and for programmers, it makes sense to discourage GPL".
  - rifung 12y ago
    Why would programmers want to promote GPL, if they are not FOSS programmers? Do you consider "proprietary software developers" to be anyone who develops proprietary software, even if they contribute to open source as well? Because even if you did both I would think you would prefer non GPL code since you wouldn't be restricted in where you can use the code. So again it seems like "on a site by and for programmers it makes sense to discourage GPL" to me, for all except FOSS programmers.
    - JoshTriplett 12y ago
      > Why would programmers want to promote GPL, if they are not FOSS programmers? See vdaniuk's response in this same thread. Also, just because someone hacks on proprietary software doesn't mean their preference is to hack on proprietary software.
      - rifung 12y ago
        Indeed my preference is definitely not to hack on proprietary software. However if I have to do the same thing I'd prefer not to have to choose and learn how to use two different libraries for example. As for vdaniuk's response, I read it and I dont see what value it adds. The comment basically said overall GPL is good, without any explanation. Obviously I dont disagree that its good but dont see why one would encourage it over MIT or BSD.
        JoshTriplett 12y ago
        > Indeed my preference is definitely not to hack on proprietary software. However if I have to do the same thing I'd prefer not to have to choose and learn how to use two different libraries for example. If there's a competing library under a permissive license with mostly the same functionality, the GPLed version doesn't really help. The point of the GPL is to create an ecosystem of software with compelling functionality that makes it much easier (and more fun) to hack on Free Software than proprietary software. And if you're hacking on proprietary software, repeatedly encountering GPLed libraries you could be using instead of recreating their functionality from scratch makes it easier to make a case to management that maybe the thing you're working on shouldn't be proprietary after all, as well as making it more tempting to change what you're working on.
        rifung 12y ago
        Point taken for making a case to management, although I wonder how often management would OK open sourcing.
        12y ago
- Flimm 12y ago
  I program code that doesn't get distributed, would you count me as a "proprietary programmer"?
  - JoshTriplett 12y ago
    Personally, I wouldn't; there's a difference between "code that doesn't get distributed to anyone" and "code that gets distributed to some people in binary form but not in source form". If everyone who has a binary has source, everyone who has the software can hack on it. There's nothing wrong with choosing not to distribute software at all.
brandonwamboldt 12y ago
I think you're wrong. GPL is designed specifically for FOSS programmers who work only on FOSS projects. Legally, it's a restrictive license that limits options for developers who develop for a day job (for a company that keeps their software proprietary). The BSD and MIT licenses are far superior for the average working dev.
- vdaniuk 12y ago
  Look, individually BSD and MIT licenses are superior for an "average" programmer, however all programmers and users would be much worse off without GPL.
- marssaxman 12y ago
  What are you talking about? If I'm going to give my code away, it's because I want people to use it and share it, and letting downstream devs take my work and close it up for private gain would suck - especially since they're not obligated to share any of their private profits with me. No, if I'm going to give my code away, it's going to be "share and share alike", and that's what the GPL does best. How would it be "superior" to give my code away in a manner that lets other people take advantage without sharing?
  - maxlybbert 12y ago
    > If I'm going to give my code away, it's because I want people to use it and share it, and letting downstream devs take my work and close it up for private gain would suck - especially since they're not obligated to share any of their private profits with me. There are several reasons to give away code. It's perfectly reasonable to want people to share improvements with you, in which case the GPL is the right choice. But it's also reasonable to just not care what happens to the code after you send it off, in which case the GPL is likely to be as much a burden on you as on downstream programmers. Using Stallman's terminology, the GPL prevents people from boarding your code, but it also prevents them from using it with incompatible open source licenses (say, licenses with an advertising clause or a choice of law clause) without special permission. I just don't get all that worked up over whether somebody wants to use the Apache license version 1.1.
maxlybbert 12y ago
> Perhaps you meant on a site that's designed to also serve the needs of proprietary programmers, as opposed to just FOSS programmers? I've never noticed a shortage of GPLed projects on Github. But I think it would make sense for Github to nudge programmers into choosing licenses other than the GPL. When I start a project, I appreciate the ability to build off of permissively licensed libraries. At the least, it means that I don't have to worry about various pretend lawyers wasting my time with emails about how the GPL handles some edge case.
dec0dedab0de 12y ago
I think the GPL is more designed for end users who happen to know how to program.

guelo 12y ago

Permissiveness is relative. GPL restricts developers from restricting the code. GPL code cannot be restricted, it is and always will be free. GPL is extremely permissive to code. "You can take my code and do anything you want with it. A person that gets the code from you can also do anything they want with it."