Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

teddziuba.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 50 posts

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

#21

Post by tedunangst »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #15

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 A…

"I am not that clear why Apache 2 and BSD styles licensed projects just couldn't be Apache 2."

    $ wc -w isc apache
    192 isc
    1395 apache

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

#22

Post by tentonova »

tptacek wrote: post #19
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 compe…

I'm not sure how I understand how a commercial license is "strictly more restrictive" than the AGPL, which requires that you also release your code under the AGPL. Whether or not it's "strictly more restrictive" rather depends on whether you want to also release all the source to your own code as well.

I also don't understand how the AGPL's objectives are "benevolent" when the primary purpose of those objectives as applied by commercial interests is to ensure a revenue stream via commercial license.

You yourself said: "GPL-style licenses make it harder for competing companies to use your code. GPL is therefore an easier sell inside of a company."

How is that benevolent? (charitable, intending or showing kindness).

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

#23

Post by tptacek »

tentonova wrote: post #20
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).

Yes, the BSD license sure is better for software users. You can lift a BSD package wholesale into a new white-label product, and you don't even have to tell the author! That sure is convenient.

You use the BSD license when you don't care about the commercial value of your code. But, for the most part, I think using the BSD license means you're not going to care about the commercial value of your code, because if it's valuable, people will freeload.

In my industry, the GPL has done a servicable job protecting some key software projects (Snort, Nessus, Wireshark). The counterexamples (notably Metasploit) are utterly dependent on the continued effort of the original authors --- Metasploit goes stale faster than almost any other security tool.

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

#24

Post by tentonova »

tptacek wrote: post #23
tentonova wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Yes, the BSD license sure is better for software users . You can lift a BSD package wholesale into a new white-label product, and you don't even have to tell the author! That sure is convenient. You use the BSD license when you don't care about the commercial value of your code. But, for the most part, I think using the BSD license means you're not going to care about the commercial value of your code, because if it'…

Yes, the BSD license sure is better for software users.

It's also better for software contributors who want to leverage the code in their own products, and use the resulting revenue to contribute back their changes (but not their entire product).

But, for the most part, I think using the BSD license means you're not going to care about the commercial value of your code, because if it's valuable, people will freeload.

Some people will free-load. Many won't. Look at the Apache project, where a vast majority of development is funded by corporations using the software in their closed source products while contributing improvements back to the original product.

In my industry, the GPL has done a servicable job protecting some key software projects (Snort, Nessus, Wireshark).

How do you define "protecting", and what evidence would you use to demonstrate that protection? What would you say those projects were protected from?

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

#25

Post by tptacek »

tentonova wrote: post #22
tptacek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compe…

I'm not sure how I understand how a commercial license is "strictly more restrictive" than the AGPL, which requires that you also release your code under the AGPL. Whether or not it's "strictly more restrictive" rather depends on whether you want to also release all the source to your own code as well. I also don't understand how the AGPL's objectives are "benevolent" when the primary purpose of those objectives as a…

Commercial license: not only do you not have the right to use my software without accepting my terms, but you will pay me, probably per-core. That's strictly worse than AGPL.

You and I may be arguing at cross-purposes. You seem to care a lot about the hardships licenses create for software users. I couldn't care less. I think it's an inherently benevolent thing for a software author to give away her code for free, and if she wants to do that under a strict copyleft... her code, her terms.

The objective of the AGPL is reasonable. "Don't use my code in closed-source applications". As a developer, that term has been annoying on many occasions (shudder readline), but it has never seemed unfair.

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

#26

Post by tptacek »

tentonova wrote: post #24
tptacek wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the BSD license sure is better for software users . You can lift a BSD package wholesale into a new white-label product, and you don't even have to tell the author! That sure is convenient. You use the BSD license when you don't care about the commercial value of your code. But, for the most part, I think using the BSD license means you're not going to care about the commercial value of your code, because if it'…

Yes, the BSD license sure is better for software users. It's also better for software contributors who want to leverage the code in their own products, and use the resulting revenue to contribute back their changes (but not their entire product). But, for the most part, I think using the BSD license means you're not going to care about the commercial value of your code, because if it's valuable, people will freeload.…

In the case of Snort, that would be protection from 5-10 VC-funded commercial companies releasing products that compete with Sourcefire's product, the core of which (in fact, the entire v1.0 of which) is simply Snort. Does that sound fair to you? That someone would collect $5MM to build a 30 person engineering team that gets to start picking off customers in 3 months by repackaging your code? It doesn't sound fair to me at all.

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

#27

Post by tentonova »

tptacek wrote: post #25
tentonova wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how I understand how a commercial license is "strictly more restrictive" than the AGPL, which requires that you also release your code under the AGPL. Whether or not it's "strictly more restrictive" rather depends on whether you want to also release all the source to your own code as well. I also don't understand how the AGPL's objectives are "benevolent" when the primary purpose of those objectives as a…

Commercial license: not only do you not have the right to use my software without accepting my terms, but you will pay me, probably per-core. That's strictly worse than AGPL. You and I may be arguing at cross-purposes. You seem to care a lot about the hardships licenses create for software users . I couldn't care less. I think it's an inherently benevolent thing for a software author to give away her code for free, a…

I'm surprised at the appeals to emotion engendered in your word choices -- "fairness" and "benevolence".

I don't think either applies. The GPL is primarily useful as a means to maintain a very specific business model that relies on selling commercial licenses. There's nothing moralistic or benevolent or "fair" about it -- it's simply business.

The only moral argument I could possibly make is that it's disingenuous if not outright hypocritical to claim that the GPL is about "freedom" when its used as merely a business tool that leverages the closed-source work of others to fund ongoing development.

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

#28

Post by tentonova »

tptacek wrote: post #26
tentonova wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the BSD license sure is better for software users. It's also better for software contributors who want to leverage the code in their own products, and use the resulting revenue to contribute back their changes (but not their entire product). But, for the most part, I think using the BSD license means you're not going to care about the commercial value of your code, because if it's valuable, people will freeload.…

In the case of Snort, that would be protection from 5-10 VC-funded commercial companies releasing products that compete with Sourcefire's product, the core of which (in fact, the entire v1.0 of which) is simply Snort. Does that sound fair to you? That someone would collect $5MM to build a 30 person engineering team that gets to start picking off customers in 3 months by repackaging your code? It doesn't sound fair to…

As I said below, I'm surprised by the emotional arguments engendered in your word choices -- "fairness", "benevolence", etc.

This is simply business, not ideology. In terms of ideology, I think there's a simply check for whether Sourcefire meets the criteria of "I love the GPL. Except when it applies to me": Sourcefire could not ever include anyone else's GPL code in their own product without breaking their business model.

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

#29

Post by tptacek »

tentonova wrote: post #27
tptacek wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commercial license: not only do you not have the right to use my software without accepting my terms, but you will pay me, probably per-core. That's strictly worse than AGPL. You and I may be arguing at cross-purposes. You seem to care a lot about the hardships licenses create for software users . I couldn't care less. I think it's an inherently benevolent thing for a software author to give away her code for free, a…

I'm surprised at the appeals to emotion engendered in your word choices -- "fairness" and "benevolence". I don't think either applies. The GPL is primarily useful as a means to maintain a very specific business model that relies on selling commercial licenses. There's nothing moralistic or benevolent or "fair" about it -- it's simply business. The only moral argument I could possibly make is that it's disingenuous if…

I agree that the GPL is primarily useful as a vehicle for making money off software that is also released as open source. Since open source commercial software is strictly better than closed source commercial software, I don't have a hard time using words like "benevolent" to describe that practice.

Remember, people can still compete with GPL/AGPL software. They just have to do it with open source code.

Finally, your third graf is profoundly disingenuous. Most GPL software is noncommercial. Everything we use to post on HN is traceable in some way back to GCC, which isn't making money for anyone.

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

#30

Post by tptacek »

tentonova wrote: post #28
tptacek wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of Snort, that would be protection from 5-10 VC-funded commercial companies releasing products that compete with Sourcefire's product, the core of which (in fact, the entire v1.0 of which) is simply Snort. Does that sound fair to you? That someone would collect $5MM to build a 30 person engineering team that gets to start picking off customers in 3 months by repackaging your code? It doesn't sound fair to…

As I said below, I'm surprised by the emotional arguments engendered in your word choices -- "fairness", "benevolence", etc. This is simply business, not ideology. In terms of ideology, I think there's a simply check for whether Sourcefire meets the criteria of "I love the GPL. Except when it applies to me": Sourcefire could not ever include anyone else's GPL code in their own product without breaking their business…

And? So what? Sourcefire isn't scavenging Github for code to stick on their boxes; they're writing code, and then (for the most part) publishing it to the world.

From my vantage point, it's the people who produce interesting and valuable code whose interests should come first. Companies who reallllly want to use that code in their for-profit endeavors can buy a license or build their own replacement or open their code; I don't care.

Post reply on HN