5 ms·

Considering the vast majority of programmers are proprietary programmers, at least for most of their week, I would consider the GPL not designed specifically fo

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.
        JoshTriplett 12y ago
        Depends on the company. Personally, I've seen it work many times.
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.

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.
        JoshTriplett 12y ago
        Depends on the company. Personally, I've seen it work many times.

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.