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

31–40 of 50 posts

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

#31

Post by tptacek »

tentonova wrote: post #11
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 licen…

Not a sustainable business model according to who?

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=211736

Red Hat is a cop-out example. Why not talk about SourceFire, Sleepycat, Splunk, Hyperic, Zimbra, and Astaro? These are all companies that sell software, GPL their code, and are (or were, before lucrative aquisition) extremely successful. SourceFire IPO'd off their GPL package; the company's name comes from the fact that they're open source.

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

#32

Post by tentonova »

tptacek wrote: post #29
tentonova wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

I'm not sure I understand your use of "strictly better" here. If my goal is to solve a specific problem, then isn't the software that solves that problem the best strictly better software?

As far as benevolence, why ascribe primarily altruistic motives to clear business decisions? MySQL's use of the GPL allowed for pervasive adoption, which increased demand for commercial licensing and support services.

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.

How do you think GCC development is paid for? Just take a look at the (closed source, proprietary, et al) companies providing the primary funding ongoing GCC development (although many are moving to or looking at LLVM, since its licensing provides a better model for this sort of shared OSS funding).

It always comes down to money and either commercial interests or government funding.

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

#33

Post by tentonova »

tptacek wrote: post #31
tentonova wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 licen…

Not a sustainable business model according to who ? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=211736 Red Hat is a cop-out example. Why not talk about SourceFire, Sleepycat, Splunk, Hyperic, Zimbra, and Astaro? These are all companies that sell software, GPL their code, and are (or were, before lucrative aquisition) extremely successful. SourceFire IPO'd off their GPL package; the company's name comes from the fact that the…

Why not talk about SourceFire, Sleepycat, Splunk, Hyperic, Zimbra, and Astaro

All selling services and products around a very specific type of software, selling to a very specific market niche, leveraging both trademarks and non-GPL licensing to do so.

They're not selling the GPL software itself.

Take your Sourcefire example. They fund development by selling proprietary hardware and proprietary licensed IDS rulesets under trademarked names to an enterprise market niche.

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

#34

Post by tptacek »

tentonova wrote: post #32
tptacek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 I'm not sure I understand your use of "strictly better" here. If my goal is to solve a specific problem, then isn't the…

I think you and I are wasting time. You care about making things easier for software users. Software users don't make more software; software authors do. I care about the interests of developers to the exclusion of almost everything else, and I'm also simply not religious about the tools they use to accomplish those aims.

The business benefits of the GPL are so compelling that I don't think they need my cheerleading. If I write 50,000 lines of C code, and you want to stick that code in your $10,000 software package and not pay me a dime, the GPL (for the most part) keeps you from doing that. Total win.

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

#35

Post by tentonova »

tptacek wrote: post #30
tentonova wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cod…

I'm not sure what your point is, or how it counters the author's original point, which is that what's good for the goose is very much not good for the gander.

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

#36

Post by tentonova »

tptacek wrote: post #34
tentonova wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 I'm not sure I understand your use of "strictly better" here. If my goal is to solve a specific problem, then isn't the…

I think you and I are wasting time. You care about making things easier for software users. Software users don't make more software; software authors do. I care about the interests of developers to the exclusion of almost everything else, and I'm also simply not religious about the tools they use to accomplish those aims. The business benefits of the GPL are so compelling that I don't think they need my cheerleading.…

I think you and I are wasting time. You care about making things easier for software users. Software users don't make more software; software authors do.

Actually, I think "users" should pay for software as that's all they're able to contribute, and I don't think that the GPL dual-licensing model users by some enterprise vendors can actually work for most consumer software.

If I produce developer-oriented software that's outside of our core business -- but perhaps enables our core business -- I am very likely to release it under the MIT/BSD license to help aid in wide adoption and external contribution from funding business interests.

If I produce software that is our core business, then I won't MIT/BSD license it. I might GPL it, but only if there's a clear value (ie, leveraging the 'open source' name, aiding in widespread adoption by hobbyists while targeting enterprise users, etc) in doing so.

The business benefits of the GPL are so compelling that I don't think they need my cheerleading.

The benefits are only compelling for --some-- business models. And this doesn't disprove the author's point.

As for other business models, especially around commoditized software, the BSD license often provides the most compelling business benefits as corporates are free to pool resources on code they are free to link against without having to release the entirety of their products under a copyleft license.

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

#37

Post by dagw »

blasdel wrote: post #13
j_baker wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not just source contribution, but also the contribution of new GPL applications. I've written a couple of apps which are licensed under the GPL, not because I necessarily thought it was the best license for me, but simply because I wanted to use a GPL library. Had the library I wanted to use been some other license, my app might have been some other license. But it wasn't and now there is one more GPL app.

Of course there is the other side of the coin where I haven't used a library I really wanted to use because I couldn't GPL my app.

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

#38

Post by tptacek »

tentonova wrote: post #33
tptacek wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a sustainable business model according to who ? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=211736 Red Hat is a cop-out example. Why not talk about SourceFire, Sleepycat, Splunk, Hyperic, Zimbra, and Astaro? These are all companies that sell software, GPL their code, and are (or were, before lucrative aquisition) extremely successful. SourceFire IPO'd off their GPL package; the company's name comes from the fact that the…

Why not talk about SourceFire, Sleepycat, Splunk, Hyperic, Zimbra, and Astaro All selling services and products around a very specific type of software, selling to a very specific market niche, leveraging both trademarks and non-GPL licensing to do so. They're not selling the GPL software itself. Take your Sourcefire example. They fund development by selling proprietary hardware and proprietary licensed IDS rulesets…

Who isn't selling specific software to specific niches? Your choice of license isn't going to make you any more successful with a new word processor.

It's also not true that all successful open-source companies sell to enterprises. Tenable sells Nessus to consultants. Sleepycat sold Berkeley DB to OEMs and developers. Automattic certainly doesn't sell Wordpress to enterprises.

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

#39

Post by tentonova »

tptacek wrote: post #38
tentonova wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not talk about SourceFire, Sleepycat, Splunk, Hyperic, Zimbra, and Astaro All selling services and products around a very specific type of software, selling to a very specific market niche, leveraging both trademarks and non-GPL licensing to do so. They're not selling the GPL software itself. Take your Sourcefire example. They fund development by selling proprietary hardware and proprietary licensed IDS rulesets…

Who isn't selling specific software to specific niches? Your choice of license isn't going to make you any more successful with a new word processor. It's also not true that all successful open-source companies sell to enterprises. Tenable sells Nessus to consultants. Sleepycat sold Berkeley DB to OEMs and developers. Automattic certainly doesn't sell Wordpress to enterprises.

You're introducing a logical non-sequitur. That there is a niche isn't the issue, it's what the niche is.

Enterprise services.

The fact that they're also not actually selling GPL software (ie, an indirect business model), this all doesn't really disprove my point -- or the original authors.

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

#40

Post by [deleted] »

tentonova wrote: post #39
tptacek wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who isn't selling specific software to specific niches? Your choice of license isn't going to make you any more successful with a new word processor. It's also not true that all successful open-source companies sell to enterprises. Tenable sells Nessus to consultants. Sleepycat sold Berkeley DB to OEMs and developers. Automattic certainly doesn't sell Wordpress to enterprises.

You're introducing a logical non-sequitur. That there is a niche isn't the issue, it's what the niche is. Enterprise services. The fact that they're also not actually selling GPL software (ie, an indirect business model), this all doesn't really disprove my point -- or the original authors.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN