3 ms·

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 fr

by 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.
elsjaako 11y ago
The blog post actually commented on this: > As I said, I am not only pro-copyleft, I am also pro-permissive licensing. The difference between these is tactics: the first tactic is towards guaranteeing user freedom, the second tactic is toward pushing adoption. I am generally pro-freedom, but sometimes pushing adoption is important, especially if you're pushing standards and the like. Outside of that situation: because they might give back changes to your software, even if they don't free the rest of the code. Of course, this might be a good argument for the LGPL.

by tjr 11y ago

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.

elsjaako 11y ago

The blog post actually commented on this: > As I said, I am not only pro-copyleft, I am also pro-permissive licensing. The difference between these is tactics: the first tactic is towards guaranteeing user freedom, the second tactic is toward pushing adoption. I am generally pro-freedom, but sometimes pushing adoption is important, especially if you're pushing standards and the like. Outside of that situation: because they might give back changes to your software, even if they don't free the rest of the code. Of course, this might be a good argument for the LGPL.