4 ms·

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.
    - davidgerard 11y ago
      Um, I didn't say any of that at all. Here are my words: "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." I seriously do not understand how you got that from what I wrote.
      - ninkendo 11y ago
        Sorry, I've re-read it several times and I still don't understand it then. It sounds like you were claiming that the problem isn't with the GPL but with my company having bad policies. So I attempted to defend my company's policies (as I explained in the post.) The overall point is that I can't help contribute to GPL code because the GPL license prevents me from using it in the first place. (My company's policies are a red herring, they're merely there to make sure I use software properly.) I am theorizing that perhaps a developer may want my contributions, which is why they may want to consider that before they choose the GPL. Edit: Ah, I think I understand now... when you said my company has bad policies you meant not open sourcing our SaaS is the bad policy, not don't use GPL as a policy. It's an entirely different conversation if that's the case, sorry I misread.

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.
  - davidgerard 11y ago
    Um, I didn't say any of that at all. Here are my words: "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." I seriously do not understand how you got that from what I wrote.
    - ninkendo 11y ago
      Sorry, I've re-read it several times and I still don't understand it then. It sounds like you were claiming that the problem isn't with the GPL but with my company having bad policies. So I attempted to defend my company's policies (as I explained in the post.) The overall point is that I can't help contribute to GPL code because the GPL license prevents me from using it in the first place. (My company's policies are a red herring, they're merely there to make sure I use software properly.) I am theorizing that perhaps a developer may want my contributions, which is why they may want to consider that before they choose the GPL. Edit: Ah, I think I understand now... when you said my company has bad policies you meant not open sourcing our SaaS is the bad policy, not don't use GPL as a policy. It's an entirely different conversation if that's the case, sorry I misread.