5 ms·

[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

[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]
hjejinnjkd 11y ago
Oh boo hoo, get a better job with less shitty restrictions, you weren't forced to take those positions or sign those contracts.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
minot 11y ago
What are your thoughts about copyright assignment? Is your current employer willing to contribute code to something like a foundation and assign copyright to them with the code licensed under AGPL? If not, is your current employer willing to pay a certain amount to the aforementioned foundation get a proprietary perpetual, non-revocable, transferable blah blah license for a one time payment of... let's say $50k? What I'm asking essentially is: Is your company willing to help develop something like Ghostscript either by a. writing code for ghostscript to make it better or b. giving them money to make ghostscript better? Even if both the answers are no, perhaps this module can act on its own and you can just never modify the source code. I believe as long as you don't modify the source code and just use binaries provided by upstream, all you'd have to do is to provide the binaries and the source files that you got from upstream. I don't see why corporations have to be anti-GPL.
- tjr 11y ago
  From what I have witnessed in industry: It would probably be immensely helpful if the GPL software developers who were open to alternate licensing schemes explicitly said so on their web pages. Otherwise the only licensing option listed for their software is GPL. It's a minor point, granted, but I think it would make a difference. EDIT: e.g., a statement like, This software is licensed to the public under GPLv3. If you would like to use this software under different licensing terms, please email us / review our price sheet / etc.
  - dalke 11y ago
    But isn't that true of nearly every other license and vendor? Which developers are open to relicensing their proprietary software under the GPL, and if so, for how much? If the price is right, then perhaps enough people will contribute and free the software, which could also make a difference.
    - tjr 11y ago
      Sure, well, I wrote that in the context of, if any GPL software developers want their software to be used more in a non-copyleft setting and are willing to negotiate a difference license. It very well could work both ways; some proprietary software developer would likely be willing to release their software as GPL if paid enough money, since, ostensibly, the proprietary license was chosen to help make money in the first place. I can imagine that some proprietary software developers choose proprietary licensing for some other reason, but I suspect it's mostly the default for anyone looking to charge for copies.
forgottenpass 11y ago
I can sympathize with not wanting to do the same work over and over again, and I would never consider someone a bad person just because they're working on proprietary software. But I can't even begin to understand how the license "punishes" the engineer. Your employer refuses to use an external tool. Their legal policy is simply incompatible with the licensing terms of the external product. Just as their purchasing policy would be incompatible with a $1B tool. So you're hired to make an internal version of an external tool. Why not try to change your employer's policy? If they say they'd rather re-invent the wheel, aren't you just complaining about your job? Not external licensing choices? I'm tired of doing the same shit over and over again. Then why do you keep taking jobs to do exactly that?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - forgottenpass 11y ago
    Then it sounds like time for a career change. Or you could go into business building this for yourself and selling it to companies that refuse to touch anything open source.
  - davidgerard 11y ago
    Try operations at a company that isn't GPL-phobic. It's not like there's a shortage of them. I mean, does your company run Linux knowing what license it's under? I'm frankly boggling at the idea that a company will seriously try to stop operations from touching GPLed software. Unless you're a 100% Windows shop and the actual license for everything you use is "proprietary".
ori_b 11y ago
> Why am I suddenly intrinsically bad for taking a paycheck from Google or Apple? You aren't. But you're not paying me enough to care about supporting you. You find something I've been working on useful, and you want me to relicense it for you? I'm willing to sell you a copy under whatever license you want.
pdkl95 11y ago
> proprietary usage > forbidden... from using The GPL doesn't apply when you are using Free Software, because the GPL is not an EULA. The only time the GPL becomes relevant is when you want a licence to redistribute that software (or your derivative version). There are several options: you can choose to face the consequences of a copyright violation, you negotiate a specific licence with the authors of the software, or you can use the automatic licence granted by the GPL (provided you abide by the restrictions it imposes). For someone in operations, if you're just using the software and not making your own changes, there is nothing stopping you from using Free Software tools anywhere you want. If you want to incorporate Free source code into your own tool, the GPL only increases your options, as you can still negotiate with the authors, just like you would have to if you wanted to include other proprietary code. The only way the GPL could be seen as "punishing" anybody are the people that want to redistribute GPL code in their own product or tool without paying for it. If they don't like the price - recursively granting others the same freedom - then they are free to choose another vendor (or write their own version). > forbidden by legal Of course, if your legal department makes bad decisions because they do not understand the GPL, you may want to educate them (or refer them to the FSF)... or perhaps find a new legal department... or job.
- ninkendo 11y ago
  The semantics over what is considered a "distribution event" is not trivial, and it's largely seen as a "loophole" in the GPL that you can write a SaaS using GPL code and get away with it. (For instance, the AGPL closes this loophole.) Legal departments understand that using GPL code in proprietary services violates the "spirit" of the GPL, which is why they want to shy away from it. It's especially thorny because if say, a contractor logs into the server that's running your SaaS, and your SaaS is linked against a GPL library, technically that's a distribution event (because the contractor works for another company, and now you distributed it to him), and now your SaaS has to be licensed under the GPL too. Oops. When you consider all this, there's no wonder large companies just make blanket policies of no GPL, ever. And the GPLed works out there suffer, because those same large companies are happy to use permissively-licensed libraries, make fixes, and push those fixes upstream. But they can't do that with the GPL, because they don't want to touch it to begin with. It's ironically preventing the exact thing the GPL was meant to encourage.

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]

hjejinnjkd 11y ago

Oh boo hoo, get a better job with less shitty restrictions, you weren't forced to take those positions or sign those contracts.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

minot 11y ago

What are your thoughts about copyright assignment? Is your current employer willing to contribute code to something like a foundation and assign copyright to them with the code licensed under AGPL? If not, is your current employer willing to pay a certain amount to the aforementioned foundation get a proprietary perpetual, non-revocable, transferable blah blah license for a one time payment of... let's say $50k? What I'm asking essentially is: Is your company willing to help develop something like Ghostscript either by a. writing code for ghostscript to make it better or b. giving them money to make ghostscript better? Even if both the answers are no, perhaps this module can act on its own and you can just never modify the source code. I believe as long as you don't modify the source code and just use binaries provided by upstream, all you'd have to do is to provide the binaries and the source files that you got from upstream. I don't see why corporations have to be anti-GPL.

tjr 11y ago
From what I have witnessed in industry: It would probably be immensely helpful if the GPL software developers who were open to alternate licensing schemes explicitly said so on their web pages. Otherwise the only licensing option listed for their software is GPL. It's a minor point, granted, but I think it would make a difference. EDIT: e.g., a statement like, This software is licensed to the public under GPLv3. If you would like to use this software under different licensing terms, please email us / review our price sheet / etc.
- dalke 11y ago
  But isn't that true of nearly every other license and vendor? Which developers are open to relicensing their proprietary software under the GPL, and if so, for how much? If the price is right, then perhaps enough people will contribute and free the software, which could also make a difference.
  - tjr 11y ago
    Sure, well, I wrote that in the context of, if any GPL software developers want their software to be used more in a non-copyleft setting and are willing to negotiate a difference license. It very well could work both ways; some proprietary software developer would likely be willing to release their software as GPL if paid enough money, since, ostensibly, the proprietary license was chosen to help make money in the first place. I can imagine that some proprietary software developers choose proprietary licensing for some other reason, but I suspect it's mostly the default for anyone looking to charge for copies.

forgottenpass 11y ago

I can sympathize with not wanting to do the same work over and over again, and I would never consider someone a bad person just because they're working on proprietary software. But I can't even begin to understand how the license "punishes" the engineer. Your employer refuses to use an external tool. Their legal policy is simply incompatible with the licensing terms of the external product. Just as their purchasing policy would be incompatible with a $1B tool. So you're hired to make an internal version of an external tool. Why not try to change your employer's policy? If they say they'd rather re-invent the wheel, aren't you just complaining about your job? Not external licensing choices? I'm tired of doing the same shit over and over again. Then why do you keep taking jobs to do exactly that?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- forgottenpass 11y ago
  Then it sounds like time for a career change. Or you could go into business building this for yourself and selling it to companies that refuse to touch anything open source.
- davidgerard 11y ago
  Try operations at a company that isn't GPL-phobic. It's not like there's a shortage of them. I mean, does your company run Linux knowing what license it's under? I'm frankly boggling at the idea that a company will seriously try to stop operations from touching GPLed software. Unless you're a 100% Windows shop and the actual license for everything you use is "proprietary".

ori_b 11y ago

> Why am I suddenly intrinsically bad for taking a paycheck from Google or Apple? You aren't. But you're not paying me enough to care about supporting you. You find something I've been working on useful, and you want me to relicense it for you? I'm willing to sell you a copy under whatever license you want.

pdkl95 11y ago

> proprietary usage > forbidden... from using The GPL doesn't apply when you are using Free Software, because the GPL is not an EULA. The only time the GPL becomes relevant is when you want a licence to redistribute that software (or your derivative version). There are several options: you can choose to face the consequences of a copyright violation, you negotiate a specific licence with the authors of the software, or you can use the automatic licence granted by the GPL (provided you abide by the restrictions it imposes). For someone in operations, if you're just using the software and not making your own changes, there is nothing stopping you from using Free Software tools anywhere you want. If you want to incorporate Free source code into your own tool, the GPL only increases your options, as you can still negotiate with the authors, just like you would have to if you wanted to include other proprietary code. The only way the GPL could be seen as "punishing" anybody are the people that want to redistribute GPL code in their own product or tool without paying for it. If they don't like the price - recursively granting others the same freedom - then they are free to choose another vendor (or write their own version). > forbidden by legal Of course, if your legal department makes bad decisions because they do not understand the GPL, you may want to educate them (or refer them to the FSF)... or perhaps find a new legal department... or job.

ninkendo 11y ago
The semantics over what is considered a "distribution event" is not trivial, and it's largely seen as a "loophole" in the GPL that you can write a SaaS using GPL code and get away with it. (For instance, the AGPL closes this loophole.) Legal departments understand that using GPL code in proprietary services violates the "spirit" of the GPL, which is why they want to shy away from it. It's especially thorny because if say, a contractor logs into the server that's running your SaaS, and your SaaS is linked against a GPL library, technically that's a distribution event (because the contractor works for another company, and now you distributed it to him), and now your SaaS has to be licensed under the GPL too. Oops. When you consider all this, there's no wonder large companies just make blanket policies of no GPL, ever. And the GPLed works out there suffer, because those same large companies are happy to use permissively-licensed libraries, make fixes, and push those fixes upstream. But they can't do that with the GPL, because they don't want to touch it to begin with. It's ironically preventing the exact thing the GPL was meant to encourage.