5 ms·

Lots of comments are talking about how Apple "doesn't owe [the FSF] anything" and that it's a "business decisison". This is all true, but it misses the point.

Lots of comments are talking about how Apple "doesn't owe [the FSF] anything" and that it's a "business decisison". This is all true, but it misses the point. The point is that the current trend of companies releasing stuff under non-copyleft licenses and keeping the 'good stuff' in proprietary forks is bad for free (FSF-style) software. That's why the article argues that you should take a good look at what these companies are actually doing beyond press releases and act accordingly. You might still think that free software is unimportant or that having pseudo-freemium open source release is still better than nothing. But that's your own decision, based on your own values, which might not be the values the FSF thinks of as important.

cmsj 11y ago
By the same token, it might also be nice to see FSF advocates taking on board the notion that they have brought some of this on themselves with newer versions/variants of the GPL.
- pgeorgi 11y ago
  While I consider the GPLv3 family to be shoddy licenses in practice (I wasn't aware that it's possible to build a wall of text that makes seasoned lawyers run away, screaming), I understand the rationale. First, that there were devices shipping GPLv2 code that couldn't be replaced. Remember that the entire FSF story began with a printer driver that couldn't be replaced. Tivo struck a nerve there. Second, the SaaS phenomenon which, again, works around the spirit of the GPLv2 for which the (already existing) Affero GPL license was integrated properly through some notion of a modular license (GPLv3 + extensions for the "L" or "A" specializations, instead of three completely distinct texts).
  - cmsj 11y ago
    Absolutely, I hope I didn't convey a message that I think the licenses aren't without justification. I do think that they have gone too far though, and I think that is somewhat supported by the (as I see it, at least) lack of interest in v3/AGPL from large companies involved in FOSS. If anything, from the part of the universe that I observe closest (cloud stuff mainly, especially OpenStack), the exact opposite of what FSF would want, is happening. Projects seem to be choosing far more strongly to go with much more liberal licenses such as the Apache Licence.
moonchrome 11y ago
>pseudo-freemium open source release is still better than nothing No - it's much better than copyleft - the only point he has is the lack of patent grants - which is achievable without copyleft (like Apache license). Apache gives you the code and the ability to integrate the code in to your product where the copyleft part might not fit. Open source isn't some ideological dogma for me or these companies - it's a tool to lower the cost of maintenance/support (eg. community is very good at maintaining ports for niche use cases you don't have the resources to support), gain exposure and provide better tools for developers (it's much easier to work with tools that you have source access to). If you see open source as that then (A)GPL becomes a niche license that's useful for stuff like giving people free access but knowing that copyleft will unacceptable for most commercial applications so they will need to license a custom version (eg. this is the business model of companies like Qt, Xamarin, etc.)
- rogerbraun 11y ago
  Being a useful tool for businesses is not the main goal of free (FSF-style) software. The freedom of the user to read the source and modify the software is. That's why they care about the distinction between open source and free software. You can disagree with this, but I think just dismissing it as ideological does not do it justice.
  - moonchrome 11y ago
    >The freedom of the user to read the source and modify the software is. A freedom 99.9999% can't even use (because they can't read code or the code in question). These aren't 70s - code for modern applications is huge/complex and requires familiarity with the field to understand - your average programmer can't use the code even if he/she has access to it. Instances where code access is actually meaningful is closely related to someones expertise domain and that's also related to business (including "hackers" - as modern hackers are trying to monetize their ideas) and while GPL isn't a blocker for commercial use by default it usually ends up being a no-go in the practical sense. The other counter-intuitive reality of GPL is that as long as you keep your changes private you aren't required to release the code to the public. This can lead to some ironic cases where for eg. I can modify a GPL project to integrate with my code and produce something valuable - and if I wanted to provide those changes for free to give back to the community - but not release my code - I can't do that - so in the end I get the benefits and can't (for business reasons) give back. I can understand LGPL - you explicitly ask for changes to the code back so you can benefit from them - this is just a formalization of the implicit assumption that people will push back their changes to simplify their maintenance costs. Opensource licenses give you all the practical benefits of free software you need without the downsides.
stephenr 11y ago
> The point is that the current trend of companies releasing stuff under non-copyleft licenses and keeping the 'good stuff' in proprietary forks is bad for free (FSF-style) software. Copyleft is meaningless without Copyright. Apple created Swift, and thus owns the Copyright. As the Copyright owner, Apple can licence/release Swift or parts-thereof, as it chooses. Even if they did release Swift under the GPL, nothing would prevent them from also using a non-released version of Swift or from keeping certain parts/libraries in-house. > You might still think that free software is unimportant or that having pseudo-freemium open source release is still better than nothing. I think its both insulting and an incredibly narrow-view to call permissively licensed software "pseudo freemium".
- hobarrera 11y ago
  > Copyleft is meaningless without Copyright. Apple created Swift, and thus owns the Copyright. As the Copyright owner, Apple can licence/release Swift or parts-thereof, as it chooses. Even if they did release Swift under the GPL, nothing would prevent them from also using a non-released version of Swift or from keeping certain parts/libraries in-house. If swift is GPL, Apple cannot keep secret changes it makes on top of third party contributions. If swift is MIT/ISC, Apple can keep changes made on top of third party contributions secret.
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    If swift is GPL, Apple cannot keep secret changes it makes on top of third party contributions. AFAIK, even the FSF requires copyright assignment – Apple likely would too, and this means any 'official' work on Swift will can be released by Apple under any license they wish. Of course, if you don't agree with that, you are free to license your contributions as GPL and release them to the community without assigning copyright. They just won't be part of the official distribution, and Apple can't build on them. That's the best of both worlds, then.
    - davexunit 11y ago
      >FAIK, even the FSF requires copyright assignment – Apple likely would too Assigning copyright to a 501c(3) non-profit is much different than assigning copyright to a for-profit multi-billion dollar corporation. I've completed the copyright assignment form for some of my contributions to GNU. The FSF's terms are reasonable and the legal text prevents the FSF from being able to make the software non-free in the future. I really dislike copyright assignment in general, but the FSF is in a unique position and I appreciate that they can defend the GPL on my behalf.
anon1385 11y ago
>You might still think that free software is unimportant or that having pseudo-freemium open source release is still better than nothing. It's strange that you call permissive licence "pseudo-freemium" when the GPL is just as often in that way. The GPL is generally seen as a preferable licence to use in that situation since it's more difficult for competitors to make use of the code commercially - which means they are more likely to buy the paid licence. x264 is an example of a project like this. It's GPL licensed specifically so that people who want to use or modify it for use in commercial settings buy the expensive commercial licence (the lead dev considers other people using code he wrote to make money without giving him a cut to be "theft").
rsynnott 11y ago
> The point is that the current trend of companies releasing stuff under non-copyleft licenses and keeping the 'good stuff' in proprietary forks What makes you think they'll be doing that? They generally don't with clang/llvm (the only counter-example being that they briefly had a private llvm fork with ARMv8 support, but that was likely just rushing out ARMv8 support when they unexpectedly launched an ARMv8-based phone two years ago).

cmsj 11y ago

By the same token, it might also be nice to see FSF advocates taking on board the notion that they have brought some of this on themselves with newer versions/variants of the GPL.

pgeorgi 11y ago
While I consider the GPLv3 family to be shoddy licenses in practice (I wasn't aware that it's possible to build a wall of text that makes seasoned lawyers run away, screaming), I understand the rationale. First, that there were devices shipping GPLv2 code that couldn't be replaced. Remember that the entire FSF story began with a printer driver that couldn't be replaced. Tivo struck a nerve there. Second, the SaaS phenomenon which, again, works around the spirit of the GPLv2 for which the (already existing) Affero GPL license was integrated properly through some notion of a modular license (GPLv3 + extensions for the "L" or "A" specializations, instead of three completely distinct texts).
- cmsj 11y ago
  Absolutely, I hope I didn't convey a message that I think the licenses aren't without justification. I do think that they have gone too far though, and I think that is somewhat supported by the (as I see it, at least) lack of interest in v3/AGPL from large companies involved in FOSS. If anything, from the part of the universe that I observe closest (cloud stuff mainly, especially OpenStack), the exact opposite of what FSF would want, is happening. Projects seem to be choosing far more strongly to go with much more liberal licenses such as the Apache Licence.

moonchrome 11y ago

>pseudo-freemium open source release is still better than nothing No - it's much better than copyleft - the only point he has is the lack of patent grants - which is achievable without copyleft (like Apache license). Apache gives you the code and the ability to integrate the code in to your product where the copyleft part might not fit. Open source isn't some ideological dogma for me or these companies - it's a tool to lower the cost of maintenance/support (eg. community is very good at maintaining ports for niche use cases you don't have the resources to support), gain exposure and provide better tools for developers (it's much easier to work with tools that you have source access to). If you see open source as that then (A)GPL becomes a niche license that's useful for stuff like giving people free access but knowing that copyleft will unacceptable for most commercial applications so they will need to license a custom version (eg. this is the business model of companies like Qt, Xamarin, etc.)

rogerbraun 11y ago
Being a useful tool for businesses is not the main goal of free (FSF-style) software. The freedom of the user to read the source and modify the software is. That's why they care about the distinction between open source and free software. You can disagree with this, but I think just dismissing it as ideological does not do it justice.
- moonchrome 11y ago
  >The freedom of the user to read the source and modify the software is. A freedom 99.9999% can't even use (because they can't read code or the code in question). These aren't 70s - code for modern applications is huge/complex and requires familiarity with the field to understand - your average programmer can't use the code even if he/she has access to it. Instances where code access is actually meaningful is closely related to someones expertise domain and that's also related to business (including "hackers" - as modern hackers are trying to monetize their ideas) and while GPL isn't a blocker for commercial use by default it usually ends up being a no-go in the practical sense. The other counter-intuitive reality of GPL is that as long as you keep your changes private you aren't required to release the code to the public. This can lead to some ironic cases where for eg. I can modify a GPL project to integrate with my code and produce something valuable - and if I wanted to provide those changes for free to give back to the community - but not release my code - I can't do that - so in the end I get the benefits and can't (for business reasons) give back. I can understand LGPL - you explicitly ask for changes to the code back so you can benefit from them - this is just a formalization of the implicit assumption that people will push back their changes to simplify their maintenance costs. Opensource licenses give you all the practical benefits of free software you need without the downsides.

stephenr 11y ago

> The point is that the current trend of companies releasing stuff under non-copyleft licenses and keeping the 'good stuff' in proprietary forks is bad for free (FSF-style) software. Copyleft is meaningless without Copyright. Apple created Swift, and thus owns the Copyright. As the Copyright owner, Apple can licence/release Swift or parts-thereof, as it chooses. Even if they did release Swift under the GPL, nothing would prevent them from also using a non-released version of Swift or from keeping certain parts/libraries in-house. > You might still think that free software is unimportant or that having pseudo-freemium open source release is still better than nothing. I think its both insulting and an incredibly narrow-view to call permissively licensed software "pseudo freemium".

hobarrera 11y ago
> Copyleft is meaningless without Copyright. Apple created Swift, and thus owns the Copyright. As the Copyright owner, Apple can licence/release Swift or parts-thereof, as it chooses. Even if they did release Swift under the GPL, nothing would prevent them from also using a non-released version of Swift or from keeping certain parts/libraries in-house. If swift is GPL, Apple cannot keep secret changes it makes on top of third party contributions. If swift is MIT/ISC, Apple can keep changes made on top of third party contributions secret.
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  If swift is GPL, Apple cannot keep secret changes it makes on top of third party contributions. AFAIK, even the FSF requires copyright assignment – Apple likely would too, and this means any 'official' work on Swift will can be released by Apple under any license they wish. Of course, if you don't agree with that, you are free to license your contributions as GPL and release them to the community without assigning copyright. They just won't be part of the official distribution, and Apple can't build on them. That's the best of both worlds, then.
  - davexunit 11y ago
    >FAIK, even the FSF requires copyright assignment – Apple likely would too Assigning copyright to a 501c(3) non-profit is much different than assigning copyright to a for-profit multi-billion dollar corporation. I've completed the copyright assignment form for some of my contributions to GNU. The FSF's terms are reasonable and the legal text prevents the FSF from being able to make the software non-free in the future. I really dislike copyright assignment in general, but the FSF is in a unique position and I appreciate that they can defend the GPL on my behalf.

anon1385 11y ago

>You might still think that free software is unimportant or that having pseudo-freemium open source release is still better than nothing. It's strange that you call permissive licence "pseudo-freemium" when the GPL is just as often in that way. The GPL is generally seen as a preferable licence to use in that situation since it's more difficult for competitors to make use of the code commercially - which means they are more likely to buy the paid licence. x264 is an example of a project like this. It's GPL licensed specifically so that people who want to use or modify it for use in commercial settings buy the expensive commercial licence (the lead dev considers other people using code he wrote to make money without giving him a cut to be "theft").

rsynnott 11y ago

> The point is that the current trend of companies releasing stuff under non-copyleft licenses and keeping the 'good stuff' in proprietary forks What makes you think they'll be doing that? They generally don't with clang/llvm (the only counter-example being that they briefly had a private llvm fork with ARMv8 support, but that was likely just rushing out ARMv8 support when they unexpectedly launched an ARMv8-based phone two years ago).