9 ms·

I work in industry. Anything GPL is a non-starter. I totally understand and appreciate the concerns, but at BigCorp GPL doesn't play. edit: I'm well aware th

• TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  OK, so large companies won't extend your software. What's wrong with that?
  • mhurron 11y ago
    Some people don't have a problem with that.
  • jules 11y ago
    Maybe you want your software to be used? I wish people could be a bit less religious and moralistic about licenses, especially the GPL camp.
    • yarrel 11y ago
      People being less religious and moralistic about use at any cost would also be nice.
  • maxlybbert 11y ago
    The argument in the article is wrong. The assumption is that companies want to extend the software and keep their extensions "locked down." That does happen, but I have seen companies willing to extend software, and make the extension public, as long as they didn't have to make the extension GPL. Whether this makes sense, or is a case of failure to understand the GPL, it does exist.
    • liviu- 11y ago
      >The argument in the article is wrong. The assumption is that companies want to extend the software and keep their extensions "locked down." I think that's by far the most common use case for avoiding GPL though.
      • ubernostrum 11y ago
        I think that is commonly assumed to be the most common use case for avoiding GPL. I have no idea whether that is actually the most common use case for avoiding GPL, and I don't know of anyone who's actually done the research on that in a useful way.
    • TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
      > The assumption is that companies want to extend the software and keep their extensions "locked down." That does happen, but I have seen companies willing to extend software, and make the extension public, as long as they didn't have to make the extension GPL. ...so? The point is that the GPL makes it illegal to lock down, while MIT and the like enable it. Yes, some companies will play nice, but they are doing so voluntarily.
      • maxlybbert 11y ago
        The solution to "companies are evil and want to horde my code" is very different from the solution to "companies don't like the GPL; perhaps because they don't understand it, perhaps because they don't like the implicit patent license that may include any patents the company has a cross license to and doesn't have the ability to sublicense."
  • stephengillie 11y ago
    At Microsoft (at least circa 2010) you weren't allowed to even install GPL software, for fear that a developer might wind up using it somehow, and cause the GPL to apply to all of, like, Windows 7. Sorry for the hyperbole, but the concern was very real, even if poorly defined.
    • FigBug 11y ago
      This is such nonsense, using GPL software can't 'infect' software you are writing. I could understand having a rule about not putting GPL source code on your machine in the case you might accidently reuse some of it -- but even that seems unlikely. I guess it's just easier to say 'GPL bad' than actually explain copyright to every developer.
    • dalke 11y ago
      There were some people at Microsoft using GPL software. For example, Microsoft's Virtual Server 2005 R2 supported Red Hat Enterprise Linux, according to this book from 2007 : https://books.google.com/books?id=BAtUWStlEUwC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=linux+at+Microsoft+2005&source=bl&ots=S9TAbGgNvP&sig=w9T3mrrdsCpdhCted65ho_6VEcg&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCWoVChMInOTjweLsxgIVYnxyCh14hQyy#v=onepage&q=linux%20at%20Microsoft%202005&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=BAtUWStlEUwC&pg=PA41&lpg=P... . And http://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-embraces-gpl-opens-hyper-v-to-linux-with-linuxic/ http://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-embraces-gpl-opens-hyper-... from 2009 says "Microsoft embraces GPL, opens Hyper-V to Linux with LinuxIC: Redmond is proving that it can compete with open source on open source's terms by licensing LinuxIC under the GPLv2 license." That said, the concern is indeed real, as http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-admits-its-gpl-violation-will-reissue-windows-7-tool-under-open-source-license/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-admits-its-gpl-violat... from 2009 shows ("Microsoft admits its GPL violation; will reissue Windows 7 tool under open-source license").
    • ethomson 11y ago
      This _may_ have been the default, knee-jerk guidance for the Windows team, or part of it, but it was certainly not true for the whole of Microsoft, even back in 2010. In 2010, Microsoft was shipping a handful of cross-platform tools that we built and tested on Unix platforms including Mac and Linux, where it's literally impossible to avoid using GPL software. Today, Microsoft ships even more cross-platform tools (Visual Studio Code) where again, it's required to use GPL tools, and we contribute to others. (I hack on GPL code as part of my job at Microsoft.) Now, of course, you're right that this was much harder within Microsoft five years ago. And one's risk exposure is different depending on the product portfolio you own (with something like Windows being less risk averse than something like Microsoft Bob). But some very key lawyers with their heads screwed on straight have overhauled our system and it's much, much easier to deal with OSS than it was five years ago. But even then it was certainly _possible_ and actively happening in parts of the company.
• djcapelis 11y ago
  That sounds like your problem. Why exactly do you think someone writing GPL code would care whether corporations you're part of like it or not?
  • ninkendo 11y ago
    For me, the answer is that I would like to contribute to that code and improve it if I'm using it internally. But I can't use it internally if it's GPL, period. The GPL means that I have to GPL my (for example) internal SaaS if I use any GPL code in it. (Yeah yeah, SaaS isn't technically "distribution" of the software, and wouldn't technically trigger me to have to release my source code, but that's still violating the spirit of the GPL if not the letter, and lawyers hate that. And AGPL codifies that "loophole" by listing "as a service" as a distribution event.) Whereas if the code was permissively licensed, I could actually use it internally in my SaaS, find bugs, fix them, make improvements, and pass the fixes upstream without someone getting pissy that I'm not releasing the code for the SaaS tool too. GPL really stifles participation in a project if potential contributors can't even use your software because they can't GPL their own derived code.
    • asanagi 11y ago
      I think you've some confusion about the words "can't" and "won't".
    • davidgerard 11y ago
      If the GPL software in question didn't exist you'd be in the same situation. So you're complaining that there's lovely software but bad corporate policies are a problem for your company. That's not a problem for the GPLed software.
      • ninkendo 11y ago
        The thing is, they're not bad corporate policies. Our legal department is trying to stay within the law, that's a good thing. The fact that you're technically allowed to use GPL code in a proprietary SaaS is a loophole, not something to be used in defense of the GPL. What you're basically saying is "GPL is great because you can get around it", which isn't really a case for the GPL but against it. The legal departments in big corporations are aware of this, and they don't really like the idea of allowing loopholes in licenses to decide what software to use, so they discourage using the GPL. If you're a software developer who's choosing an OSS license to use for their library, this is a huge factor. If you really do want companies to use your library even for proprietary SaaS applications (like in my example), choose a license that's explicitly ok with it, don't choose one that relies on a loophole to permit people to use it. And if you don't want companies using your software in proprietary services, by all means use the GPL! That's great! But don't blame my legal department or corporate policies for me not using your library, it was your decision to choose the GPL, and I don't want to go against your decision.
• tjr 11y ago
  As a free / open source software developer, why should I care? In what situations would I want to make sure that a proprietary software vendor could embed my free software into their proprietary product?
  • Sir_Substance 11y ago
    Would you like your bank using not-invented-here special snowflake implementations of security and encryption protocols, or rigorously tested open source ones? Your bank can't open source it's banking system. Probably in a literal we-lost-the-source-code-in-1993 way.
    • FigBug 11y ago
      A bank doesn't distribute its internal system so it can use GPL software.
      • Sir_Substance 11y ago
        You're right. No bank has ever, at any time, made software to run on remote payment terminals and given it to merchants. Wait, what?
    • noelsusman 11y ago
      A bank can use a copyleft encryption library without open sourcing their entire banking system. You just can't make changes to the encryption library without releasing those changes. The Linux kernel is GPL and is used in countless proprietary applications.
      • tspiteri 11y ago
        You just can't make changes to the encryption library without releasing those changes. Actually, you can make changes to GPL software without releasing those changes. The main restriction of the GPL is that if you distribute the software, you have to distribute the source too. But you have the freedom to do any changes and keep them to yourself without distributing anything.
• davexunit 11y ago
  Is the role of FOSS developers merely to provide software that people in the "industry" can use to more rapidly develop their proprietary SaaS applications? When I write software in my own free time, I purposely use the GPL, because I don't want BigCorp using my work without being a good neighbor and sharing their changes.
  • jsmthrowaway 11y ago
    [I'm removing this comment and all children because "I'm submitting too fast" and can no longer reply to the discussion I started, and as a result am now being blanket downvoted because my point was miscast. I'm also penalized below a grayed-out comment again, and I suppose the message from Hacker News is that my contributions are not wanted. Message received.]
    • sounds 11y ago
      Well, you did comment on an article where many corporations view free software as a stepping stone to "attaching strings." Why can't the corporations negotiate separate licensing deals? Why do the corporations keep building the same tooling over and over instead? If you hate working for such a corporation (and I know it may seem trite) but put your resume out there and try to find a better job. Is software freedom doomed simply because we, the developers, can't negotiate sane licensing agreements and better jobs?
      • deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        • cowsandmilk 11y ago
          Nearly every company that claims they cannot use GPL software uses Linux, which is GPL.
        • deleted 11y ago
          [deleted]
    • 11y ago
• vbezhenar 11y ago
  You can always contact author and ask him for another license for your company. Qt works exactly like that, AFAIK: GPL for free projects and commercial license for nonfree projects.
• api 11y ago
  You're saying you won't even use something GPL? Linux is GPL, so do you use something else on your servers?
• dspillett 11y ago
  BigCorp can try negotiate different terms if they really want the software under different terms, at least if the software is from a single source (or copyright has been assigned to that person/entity by the other contributors). Such negotiations may fail though, but this is no different to how they do business day in day out with other commercial entities so it shouldn't be a great culture shock for them. To put it further into BigCorp speak: adherence to the license is the standard "payment" plan for GPLed code, if that payment/licensing plan doesn't fit then you may be able to negotiate something else or find a competitor who accepts terms more compatible with your business. It gets a bit more difficult of course where there are different contributors or the project itself relies on GPL code from elsewhere, which is not unlikely for large projects - it might not be possible (or at least practical) for the maintainer to even consider entering negotiations. This is by design how the GPL is intended to work. And again: this is no different to dealing with code from other commercial entities. If BigCorp doesn't like the choice that SomeOtherDeveloper has made license wise, they can of course take their interest elsewhere - nobody is forcing them to use GPL licensed code (as some people imply by use of terms like "viral"). Personally I prefer more permissive licenses when looking to use things in my own projects, especially in my day job where like you the GPL would generally be difficult to consider, but just like BigCorp this is my choice. It isn't something I would expect others to change their ways to accommodate.
• JupiterMoon 11y ago
  What about Linux kernel and Android? There is an argument that companies should prefer the GPL for their own software that they open-source. It goes like this. If you are the copyright holder you own the software anyway and can change licenses at anytime so you are not bound by the GPL. However, your competitors (and future competitors) are. Therefore the GPL protects your company from someone else forking and closing the source for their improvements in the future.
• dalke 11y ago
  I work in industry as well, and GPL is rarely a problem, at least for pharmaceutical R&D. Perhaps you could be a bit more clear about which industry field you're talking about?
• istvan__ 11y ago
  It is psychological, for some of us freedom means I authored this piece of code and if you want to use it you do what I say aka GPL. For some other people it means that here, I wrote it and you use it as you want to use it aka BSDL. I am more likely to side with BSDL guys on this one, I do not want to do anything other than use a free software as free software if it is branded as free software. :)
• ajross 11y ago
  Your industry doesn't use Linux? I work in "industry" too, and mine certainly does.
  • tyingq 11y ago
    Because the language of the GPL is highly centered around "linking", a GPL operating system doesn't present the same kind of corporate use/acceptance/etc issues as a GPL app or library.
    • ajross 11y ago
      Uh... the word "link" doesn't even appear in the GPLv2, so the idea that its language is centered around it is sort of laughable. I think you're trying to talk about the derived works definition and the fact that the kernel license has express language with a specific definition that excludes running programs on the kernel. I'm not really interested in arguing, except to point out that the kind of ignorance you're showing about how the GPL actually works has far more to do with "corporate acceptance" in "industry" than the actual details do.
      • tyingq 11y ago
        GPLV2: "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library" Consider that perhaps I'm not an idiot. Regardless of pedantry, a GPL OS does not raise the same kinds of issues for a typical corporation that a GPL library or application does.
    • tyingq 11y ago
      I see the downvotes. Funny, because this really is the part of the GPL that stirs up controversy at corporations. Yes, it doesn't say "linking" exactly. It talks about "derivative works". Then, the FSF, separately, says that linking to a GPL library (or integrating into a GPL program) is a derivative work. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License (Check the "Linking and Derived Works" section) Or, have a look at the LGPL, created specifically to address this problem. Note that the FSF isn't thrilled about the LGPL. That's the big driver behind why a GPL OS doesn't create the kind of stir in a corporation that a GPL app or library does. Not saying it's right or wrong, just pointing out the difference.
• phkahler 11y ago
  >> I work in industry. Anything GPL is a non-starter. I totally understand and appreciate the concerns, but at BigCorp GPL doesn't play. I hope you're open to LGPL though. I don't think there's much reason to avoid linking, and a number of free software libraries allow that via LGPL. I've always view that version of the license as a terrific compromise.
  • tdees40 11y ago
    Keep in mind that BigCorp's lawyers have no idea what "linking" means, so they're probably going to veto an LGPL library just the same as they would a GPL library.
  • david-given 11y ago
    Having worked at a company that used a tonne of open source, the lawyer's reaction was, IIRC, basically: zlib etc: go nuts. New BSD/MIT/Apache etc: sigh, fine, but you'll need to get it properly registered with legal so that don't forget to add it to that document nobody reads. Old BSD: you're kidding me, right? Stupid/joke license: come back when it has a real license. LGPL: no. GPL: hell no. AGPL: aaargh! Get that off your machine RIGHT NOW! We can't even have that on the premises! The reason for not allowing LGPL is that it's not well-enough defined what linking means, which means it's not worth the risk. The reason for not allowing AGPL is that if your company does anything via the internet, then if any software which is AGPLd gets anywhere near the serving stack, suddenly you're infected. (My current company would rather I didn't use AGPL software at home, even.)
    • cpkscpks 11y ago
      You're not "infected." You have a copyright violation. It's the same as if you violate the terms of a commercial licensing agreement. The resolution is damages in both cases, not any kind of "infection" spreading. If your lawyers think otherwise, they're idiots.
• cbr 11y ago
  I work in industry too, mostly with open source software. While our go-to license is a permissive one, we use GPL software extensively and contribute changes back. (Now if you had said AGPL...)
• DannyBee 11y ago
  "I work in industry. Anything GPL is a non-starter. I totally understand and appreciate the concerns, but at BigCorp GPL doesn't play. " Maybe at some. I work at Google (in fact, i ran open source licensing :P). GPL is just fine for whatever. If you want to use it in server stuff, whatever. If you want to use it in client stuff, great, you ship source code to the right parts. As long as your product group/etc is willing to do what the license asks, we don't care. I've met about ~130 of my counterparts at large corps. I'd say about 40% have policies like yours. The other 60% though, are closer to us.
  • jbandela1 11y ago
    In these discussions AGPL has been mentioned as solving some of the short-comings of GPL. What is your company's policy regarding AGPL?
    • quadrangle 11y ago
      AGPL closes the "running on a public server isn't distribution" loophole in the GPL. AGPL is better for freedom. Google et al want that loophole, so are ardently anti-AGPL
      • DannyBee 11y ago
        Buzz, thanks for playing, see my response :) We aren't "ardently anti AGPL", we just don't use it or care. Certainly, I personally think it's a bad license for a bunch of reasons (related to my response, etc). But Google as whole simply doesn't publicly care one way or the other (IE isn't strongly AGPL). If you want to use it, great. We are fine not using it, and we tend not to contribute to AGPL software. Certainly you realize that with the amount of AGPL source code being so small and not really growing at any real rate, Google simply doesn't have to care? Why would we run around trying to stop the AGPL?
    • DannyBee 11y ago
      We don't allow AGPL. AGPL is very easy to control for the external facing stuff, but not the internal stuff. For example, based on how it defines remote network interaction, it doesn't differentiate internal or external users. So if we used AGPL in internal systems that Temps, vendors, and contractors had access to, we'd end up owing all the temps, vendors, and contractors source code to the internal system, regardless of what other NDA's or anything else were in place (it's well settled that you can't contract around or NDA folks into giving up GPL/AGPL rights) We aren't willing to take this risk (and i'd bet most companies that are doing it don't realize this is an issue :P)
• cpkscpks 11y ago
  That's funny. I work in industry, and we have a lot of GPL flying around. How do you folks get away without Linux (including Android)? It seems like you're in industry, but you're probably not in very successful industry if you don't have a mobile strategy that includes running on Android. And if you do have an Android app, then you do GPL. You just do it without any sort of sensible policy around it. Again, not all industry is that stupid.
• belorn 11y ago
  As part of the industry, I assume you don't have a debian machine running a webserver, or a git repository, or a linux box for testing/development, or ... Are you strictly talking about incorporating GPL code into proprietary products that you sell? That is a different thing, but thankfully there is a cross industry standard that you must pay the author in order to incorporate other peoples work into products of your own. If you add music, you got to pay the musician. If you have a photo in a commercial, you pay the photographer. BigCorp knows how to pay people for their work and why should it be any different in the software industry if BigCorp want to prevent others from using BigCorp products for free?