3 ms·

I think the text for GPL is much more discouraging than the others ... How about: "The GPL (V2 or V3) requires anyone who distributes your code - or a derivati

I think the text for GPL is much more discouraging than the others ... How about: "The GPL (V2 or V3) requires anyone who distributes your code - or a derivative work - to make the source available. V3 is similar to V2, but it also demands that, whenever the code comes "pre-installed" in a device, the user can run a modified version in the device" Or even: "The GPL (V2 or V3) requires anyone who distributes your code - or a derivative work - to make the source available. V3 is similar to V2. Only worry about the difference for code that comes "pre-installed" in a device"

Karunamon 12y ago
Those edits are completely insubstantial. #1 is basically s/restrict/demand. #2 completely obscures the actual differences with a "don't worry about it" handwave. The GPL is objectively a more restrictive license than BSD/MIT/Apache - just because you think the word "restricted" is ugly doesn't change this rather uncontroversial fact.
- josinalvo 12y ago
  the GPL restricts the developer more and forbids restrictions on the user. Just saying it is more "restrictive" does not clarify that (and yes. If you dont know if you want MIT or GPL, "dont worry about" V2 vs V3)
  - Guvante 12y ago
    Trying to paint that line is a bit too politically minded for my tastes. From the perspective of choosing a license for your GitHub project, GPL is restricting the consumers of your project (other developers). Attempting to explain the purpose of those restrictions will just make this less clear.
    - carapace 12y ago
      The GPL is a political weapon, designed and built for a political purpose: to fight the venal and short-sighted policies of software producers (companies and developers.) The "purpose of those restrictions" is the whole and entire point of the GPL. If you don't explain (to users or developers) why the GPL restricts distribution of code and future changes the way it does, well, you might as well just not mention it at all.
- xorcist 12y ago
  I think josinalvo has a point. Can we at least agree it's not the most likely wording that the FSF would have chosen? So while "discourage" might be too strong, it's likely not a favorable way to put it. Perhaps a pull request would be welcome?
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Sure! But consider that the whole point of choosealicense is to be non-judgmental and to explain facts, and the facts are not in question here. Saying that the GPL is more restrictive is not some slight against the GPL, it is a forthright explanation of its attributes. Furthermore, the FSF are precisely the last people I'd go to for a forthright and non judgmental description of the GPL and its purpose. The FSF is at least a primary source in this matter, and furthermore an advocacy group.
    - belorn 12y ago
      If the point of choosealicense is to be non-judgmental, they should use non-judgmental language to do so. So lets change the "I want it simple and permissive" text to "I want attribution. The MIT License only requirements is that users provide attribution back to you and don’t hold you liable." Its a forthright and non judgmental description of the MIT license and its purpose, and it matches perfectly with the style of the GPL description.
micampe 12y ago
“[…] to make the source available under the same terms.” You are omitting what is probably the most important part of the GPL.
- josinalvo 12y ago
  I agree that this is the most important thing to know about how the GPL works. I disagree that it is an important thing about what is its intent
  - micampe 12y ago
    I disagree: the intent of the GPL is to preserve freedom; the way the GPL preserves freedom is by preventing you from removing it by changing the terms. If I'm choosing a license for a project, it's important that I know that changes other people make will be available to me under the same terms as my own code. A license that requires you to make the changes available but allows you to restrict my use of those changes is plainly in contrast with the intent of the GPL.
    - josinalvo 12y ago
      I'll try another rewording: "GPL is a license designed so that, no matter how many times people alter your code, a user that gets the program also gets the source code. To do that, it forbids developers from using your code in some contexts." better ? (sure, there is a tradeoff between comprehensibility and precision ...)
quadrangle 12y ago
If you want to propose improvements, stop accepting the V2 or V3 nonsense. Telling people to use an old version is an aggressive rejection of the new version. Adding extra version choice is a subtle way to make it more complex and even less likely for people to choose the GPL overall. V3 is an improvement over V2 in basically every respect — unless you like the loopholes in V2 or are worried about compatibility with V2-only code.

Karunamon 12y ago

Those edits are completely insubstantial. #1 is basically s/restrict/demand. #2 completely obscures the actual differences with a "don't worry about it" handwave. The GPL is objectively a more restrictive license than BSD/MIT/Apache - just because you think the word "restricted" is ugly doesn't change this rather uncontroversial fact.

josinalvo 12y ago
the GPL restricts the developer more and forbids restrictions on the user. Just saying it is more "restrictive" does not clarify that (and yes. If you dont know if you want MIT or GPL, "dont worry about" V2 vs V3)
- Guvante 12y ago
  Trying to paint that line is a bit too politically minded for my tastes. From the perspective of choosing a license for your GitHub project, GPL is restricting the consumers of your project (other developers). Attempting to explain the purpose of those restrictions will just make this less clear.
  - carapace 12y ago
    The GPL is a political weapon, designed and built for a political purpose: to fight the venal and short-sighted policies of software producers (companies and developers.) The "purpose of those restrictions" is the whole and entire point of the GPL. If you don't explain (to users or developers) why the GPL restricts distribution of code and future changes the way it does, well, you might as well just not mention it at all.
xorcist 12y ago
I think josinalvo has a point. Can we at least agree it's not the most likely wording that the FSF would have chosen? So while "discourage" might be too strong, it's likely not a favorable way to put it. Perhaps a pull request would be welcome?
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Sure! But consider that the whole point of choosealicense is to be non-judgmental and to explain facts, and the facts are not in question here. Saying that the GPL is more restrictive is not some slight against the GPL, it is a forthright explanation of its attributes. Furthermore, the FSF are precisely the last people I'd go to for a forthright and non judgmental description of the GPL and its purpose. The FSF is at least a primary source in this matter, and furthermore an advocacy group.
  - belorn 12y ago
    If the point of choosealicense is to be non-judgmental, they should use non-judgmental language to do so. So lets change the "I want it simple and permissive" text to "I want attribution. The MIT License only requirements is that users provide attribution back to you and don’t hold you liable." Its a forthright and non judgmental description of the MIT license and its purpose, and it matches perfectly with the style of the GPL description.

micampe 12y ago

“[…] to make the source available under the same terms.” You are omitting what is probably the most important part of the GPL.

josinalvo 12y ago
I agree that this is the most important thing to know about how the GPL works. I disagree that it is an important thing about what is its intent
- micampe 12y ago
  I disagree: the intent of the GPL is to preserve freedom; the way the GPL preserves freedom is by preventing you from removing it by changing the terms. If I'm choosing a license for a project, it's important that I know that changes other people make will be available to me under the same terms as my own code. A license that requires you to make the changes available but allows you to restrict my use of those changes is plainly in contrast with the intent of the GPL.
  - josinalvo 12y ago
    I'll try another rewording: "GPL is a license designed so that, no matter how many times people alter your code, a user that gets the program also gets the source code. To do that, it forbids developers from using your code in some contexts." better ? (sure, there is a tradeoff between comprehensibility and precision ...)

quadrangle 12y ago

If you want to propose improvements, stop accepting the V2 or V3 nonsense. Telling people to use an old version is an aggressive rejection of the new version. Adding extra version choice is a subtle way to make it more complex and even less likely for people to choose the GPL overall. V3 is an improvement over V2 in basically every respect — unless you like the loopholes in V2 or are worried about compatibility with V2-only code.