3 ms·

I think the GPL license actually makes user freedom worse by encouraging developers to release software as web apps instead of as client applications. This is b

I think the GPL license actually makes user freedom worse by encouraging developers to release software as web apps instead of as client applications. This is because a web application that uses GPL software is not required to release its source code whereas a client application would be required to release its source code. The difference in user freedom between web apps and client apps is much bigger than the difference between a GPL client app and a proprietary client app. With a client app, even a proprietary one - the user at least in theory can see exactly what the application is doing and what data it is transmitting where. So for the average user - GPL has encouraged loss of user freedom. Of course this doesn't affect Stallman because he does not use any web apps.

Tyr42 11y ago
I also feel the the GPL Affero licence (the GPL response to this, by re-wording it so that you still have to share the source if it's a webapp) is not very clear. I know the company I'm working at is willing to be a good GPL citizen, but refuses to touch GPL affero'd code with a 3 meter pole. I like it in principle, but I don't feel like it's a good solution in practice, at least until we get some cases going before a judge to see how it gets interpreted. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html
- quadrangle 11y ago
  AGPL is perfectly clear: if you make source available under AGPL, you are in compliance. There's nothing to worry about. Plus, nobody ever sues you initially over (A)GPL compliance, they just ask you to come into compliance and only sue you if you refuse. Just release the source initially, and you're all set. Why is this hard?
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Ironic and interesting point. The client applications also had more efficiency, reliability, and security when set up right. Really hard to do that with web apps to the point that it took a lot of work by smart people to get it working this well. So, we loose across the board.
johncs 11y ago
I think the AGPL addresses this concern.
- jbandela1 11y ago
  Actually, I think it does not. I think you would be in compliance with AGPL if you had an internal server run the AGPL program and then had your external servers communicate with the internal AGPL running servers to perform work. As long as the web user was not communicating directly with the AGPL, the user to whom you would have to release your modified source is yourself since the outside user never communicates directly. Next, the AGPL is and will be a very small percentage of GPL licensed software. Finally, apart from making a political statement, I do not see the AGPL getting any traction. Apart from MongoDB (which has its drivers as Apache) I cannot think of any widely used software that is AGPL. Also, note that while MongoDB is AGPL, if you look at the contributor license (https://www.mongodb.com/legal/contributor-agreement https://www.mongodb.com/legal/contributor-agreement) any contributor is giving MongoDB the right to use and license your contribution and to make derivative works of which they are the sole owner. They can also license your code under a non-copyleft license to others. I do not see how in this case a (A)GPL is more free than a BSD/MIT license. Along this line, you will see that many successfull GPL projects (excepting Linux and the FSF ones) are of this type where the source code is GPL but any contributions give some type of copyright assignment to the company which then sells basically closed-source licenses to corporations who don't want the GPL. edit: Rewrote first point.
llllllllllllll 11y ago
> So for the average user - GPL has encouraged loss of user freedom This is ridiculous i encourage you to remember the state of affaires before gpl. User freedom wasn't even on the map. It changed everything and overall the users gained a lot. Also you should remember that gpl freedom is an ethical question. And as allways if there is an infection the medicine could make the parasites react against it.
- jbandela1 11y ago
  Let me remember the state of affairs before gpl. Before the GPL, the biggest software companies hiring the highest paid developers were companies that made proprietary software that ran on a users machine and the data did not leave the user's machine. Now the biggest tech companies are companies that use GPL software to run infrastructure that gives users 'free' services and in exchange takes their data and sells it. Because they are using it as a web, they can keep all their secrets. Now you tell me, what scenario is more conducive to user freedom and privacy. If you look at who is actually paid to work on GPL software, I would guess that most people either work for hardware companies or companies whose revenue is from advertisers. Relatively few are working on software that is actually for end-users to run on their own personal computer. GPL is great if you are Stallman and limit yourself to only what you can build yourself. For the average user, they are less free, more beholden to a platform, and have less control of their data than in the pre-GPL era.

Tyr42 11y ago

I also feel the the GPL Affero licence (the GPL response to this, by re-wording it so that you still have to share the source if it's a webapp) is not very clear. I know the company I'm working at is willing to be a good GPL citizen, but refuses to touch GPL affero'd code with a 3 meter pole. I like it in principle, but I don't feel like it's a good solution in practice, at least until we get some cases going before a judge to see how it gets interpreted. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html

quadrangle 11y ago
AGPL is perfectly clear: if you make source available under AGPL, you are in compliance. There's nothing to worry about. Plus, nobody ever sues you initially over (A)GPL compliance, they just ask you to come into compliance and only sue you if you refuse. Just release the source initially, and you're all set. Why is this hard?

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Ironic and interesting point. The client applications also had more efficiency, reliability, and security when set up right. Really hard to do that with web apps to the point that it took a lot of work by smart people to get it working this well. So, we loose across the board.

johncs 11y ago

I think the AGPL addresses this concern.

jbandela1 11y ago
Actually, I think it does not. I think you would be in compliance with AGPL if you had an internal server run the AGPL program and then had your external servers communicate with the internal AGPL running servers to perform work. As long as the web user was not communicating directly with the AGPL, the user to whom you would have to release your modified source is yourself since the outside user never communicates directly. Next, the AGPL is and will be a very small percentage of GPL licensed software. Finally, apart from making a political statement, I do not see the AGPL getting any traction. Apart from MongoDB (which has its drivers as Apache) I cannot think of any widely used software that is AGPL. Also, note that while MongoDB is AGPL, if you look at the contributor license (https://www.mongodb.com/legal/contributor-agreement https://www.mongodb.com/legal/contributor-agreement) any contributor is giving MongoDB the right to use and license your contribution and to make derivative works of which they are the sole owner. They can also license your code under a non-copyleft license to others. I do not see how in this case a (A)GPL is more free than a BSD/MIT license. Along this line, you will see that many successfull GPL projects (excepting Linux and the FSF ones) are of this type where the source code is GPL but any contributions give some type of copyright assignment to the company which then sells basically closed-source licenses to corporations who don't want the GPL. edit: Rewrote first point.

llllllllllllll 11y ago

> So for the average user - GPL has encouraged loss of user freedom This is ridiculous i encourage you to remember the state of affaires before gpl. User freedom wasn't even on the map. It changed everything and overall the users gained a lot. Also you should remember that gpl freedom is an ethical question. And as allways if there is an infection the medicine could make the parasites react against it.

jbandela1 11y ago
Let me remember the state of affairs before gpl. Before the GPL, the biggest software companies hiring the highest paid developers were companies that made proprietary software that ran on a users machine and the data did not leave the user's machine. Now the biggest tech companies are companies that use GPL software to run infrastructure that gives users 'free' services and in exchange takes their data and sells it. Because they are using it as a web, they can keep all their secrets. Now you tell me, what scenario is more conducive to user freedom and privacy. If you look at who is actually paid to work on GPL software, I would guess that most people either work for hardware companies or companies whose revenue is from advertisers. Relatively few are working on software that is actually for end-users to run on their own personal computer. GPL is great if you are Stallman and limit yourself to only what you can build yourself. For the average user, they are less free, more beholden to a platform, and have less control of their data than in the pre-GPL era.