I Love the GPL (Except When it Applies to Me) • Hacker News Board

Re: I Love the GPL (Except When it Applies to Me)

#11

Post by tentonova » Sun, Jan 03, 2010, 5:31 PM UTC

jmillikin wrote: post #6

Anybody who believes the GPL was invented to coerce users into sending patches ought to have their head examined.

The GPL was invented to leverage network effects to win in the market place, ensuring an exceptionally high entry barrier to non-GPL market entrants (a natural monopoly) should the GPL be successful in this goal.

It hasn't won in the market place -- and it won't -- primarily due to the fact that the coupling between funding and licensing is so indirect -- it's very difficult to earn a high margin on writing GPL licensed code, and most revenue models require an indirect and complex approach to earning money from the software without charging directly for the software itself.

(Yes, you can charge for GPL software. No, that's not a sustainable business model. No, RedHat is not a counter-example. RedHat charges for support and their trademarks, not the software itself, and in doing so appeals to a very specific niche enterprise market.)

Re: I Love the GPL (Except When it Applies to Me)

#12

Post by tentonova » Sun, Jan 03, 2010, 5:34 PM UTC

jacoblyles wrote: post #4

I don't get his point. Does he think copyleft is a good ideal failed by the specific personalities of the current maintainers, or a flawed dream unable to survive in the reality of the economic marketplace? The essay feels unfocused and disorganized. Now, I'm an open-minded child of the modern age and I don't agree with the oppressive old-fashioned idea that every essay must have a point. And truthfully this piece do…

My reading was that he was presenting the GPL as an inherently flawed dream unable to survive in the reality of the economic marketplace. In succeeding in market adoption, the proliferation of the GPL actually leads to its own failure due to its knocking the legs out of most of the higher-margin business models required to fund the R&D necessary to produce software.

That might also be my own bias showing.

Re: I Love the GPL (Except When it Applies to Me)

#13

Post by blasdel » Sun, Jan 03, 2010, 5:43 PM UTC

j_baker wrote: post #7

jmillikin wrote: post #6

Anybody who believes the GPL was invented to coerce users into sending patches ought to have their head examined.

I might not agree with the GPL, but I'm pretty sure that the intent behind it is to encourage people to contribute back to the open source community (even if not by directly sending patches).

The intent is to require source contribution downstream.

Any encouraging of upstream communication comes from the difficulty of keeping up with a fork and the knowledge that most code is a liability not an asset. The GPL only pushes you that way indirectly.

Re: I Love the GPL (Except When it Applies to Me)

#14

Post by jmillikin » Sun, Jan 03, 2010, 5:45 PM UTC

blasdel wrote: post #8

I'm constantly struck by just how much of a turd the AGPL is -- it's a baldfaced EULA! It takes a huge leap beyond what is enforceable via straightforward copyright law and wallows right into the deep end of clickwrap licenses (the GPLv3 bullshit at least still hinges upon distribution). With all other FOSS licenses, it's lazy bullshit to use them in the LICENSE field of your installer maker -- I absolutely do not ha…

  The RMS of twenty years ago would have never approved of such a thing, that he has lent it the imprimatur of the FSF now is testament to his intellectual bankruptcy.

I doubt he approves now. I've not been able to find a single essay or even email from him regarding the AGPL, which is interesting considering his standard evangelism regarding other licenses. And he regards SaaS as non-free, regardless of whether the source is available.

  Is the AGPL transitive across the network the way the GPL is by linking?

There's no legal precedent (that I know of) for the GPL being transitive across dynamic linking, and if it is, that opens a number of legal problems when linking with Free implementations of proprietary APIs. Static linking is, of course, still covered under standard copyright.

From my non-lawyer reading of the AGPL, it does transit between processes and systems because it covers the output of the application.

Re: I Love the GPL (Except When it Applies to Me)

#15

Post by mark_l_watson » Sun, Jan 03, 2010, 6:18 PM UTC

I don't agree with the trash talk on the AGPL in these comments to the original article. I would like to see fewer open source licenses: in my opinion the Apache 2, LGPL 3, and AGPL 3 would suffice since I am not that clear why Apache 2 and BSD styles licensed projects just couldn't be Apache 2. That said: creators should obviously have the only say in what license they choose to use.

I know someone who has a small AI + semantic web company, they use the AGPL, and I think that they are doing OK. The trick is selling a "commercial use" exception.

Also, my understanding is that if you use AGPL code in a web service, then you need to make the entire web service implementation AGPL. However, other systems that use the newly created AGPL web service do not need to be AGPL - if I am wrong about this, I would appreciate being corrected.

Re: I Love the GPL (Except When it Applies to Me)

#16

Post by mark_l_watson » Sun, Jan 03, 2010, 6:31 PM UTC

macmac wrote: post #3

dschobel wrote: post #2

I can't tell whether the angry/swearing diatribe tone is a dramatic effect or just lack of creativity/intelligence on behalf of the author.

And his assertion about license proliferation is certainly not correct ref http://www.blackducksoftware.com/oss/licenses#top20

That is interesting, thanks. I did not realize how few projects use the AGPL.

One problem with the AGPL is that it seems to work for projects that are totally owned by one individual or company because there is a clear stratgey for supporting alternative commercial use licenses with no software distribution requirements. If alternative use licenses are low cost for received value and if the commercial license passes corporate lawyer scrutiny, all is good.

The big problem with the AGPL is projects with multiple contributers - makes a paid for commercial license difficult.

Re: I Love the GPL (Except When it Applies to Me)

#17

Post by freetard » Sun, Jan 03, 2010, 6:50 PM UTC

> Free Software: I found a loophole in my student loan documentation that lets me defer payments for decades, so long as I stay in the Ph.D. program!

I'm sure Stallman and the like who have given their whole life to free software will appreciate. Meanwhile, this guy hasn't done much and yet not only complains about free software while using them but also calls them lazy at the same time. Shameless.

Re: I Love the GPL (Except When it Applies to Me)

#18

Post by tptacek » Sun, Jan 03, 2010, 7:35 PM UTC

I have no idea what his point is, but from a software business perspective, the difference between BSD-style and GPL-style is simple: GPL-style licenses make it harder for competing companies to use your code. GPL is therefore an easier sell inside of a company, because it gives the software owner special rights over the code.

Re: I Love the GPL (Except When it Applies to Me)

#19

Post by tptacek » Sun, Jan 03, 2010, 7:40 PM UTC

blasdel wrote: post #8

I'm constantly struck by just how much of a turd the AGPL is -- it's a baldfaced EULA! It takes a huge leap beyond what is enforceable via straightforward copyright law and wallows right into the deep end of clickwrap licenses (the GPLv3 bullshit at least still hinges upon distribution). With all other FOSS licenses, it's lazy bullshit to use them in the LICENSE field of your installer maker -- I absolutely do not ha…

I don't understand the ferocity of your opinion about the AGPL. Its objectives are reasonable: "don't use my software as part of a closed-source commercial web app".

Virtually every piece of commercial closed-source software is distributed under terms that are strictly more restrictive than the AGPL, and the AGPL's objectives are --- unlike those of commercial vendors --- benevolent.

Finally, licenses aren't in competition. They're just tools. You use the one that supports your objectives.

Re: I Love the GPL (Except When it Applies to Me)

#20

Post by tentonova » Sun, Jan 03, 2010, 7:43 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #18

I have no idea what his point is, but from a software business perspective, the difference between BSD-style and GPL-style is simple: GPL-style licenses make it harder for competing companies to use your code. GPL is therefore an easier sell inside of a company, because it gives the software owner special rights over the code.

In contrast, as a company looking to use and contribute to open-source software, BSD licensed code is an easier sell because you aren't locked to purchasing a commercial non-OSS license from the copyright holders (see: Oracle/Sun/Monty regarding MySQL).