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

Is the GPL Really Declining?

meshedinsights.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 242 posts

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#31

Post by djsumdog »

josephg wrote: post #20
djsumdog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally understand where you're coming from and I shared some of this. I still believe heavily in the GPL and I think more permissive license have allowed a lot of companies to wave the banner of OSS while not having to really contribute things back to the community. I come from a perspective of hating the corporate world for the two decades I've been in it; feeling deeply overpaid compared to the guy who cleans my…

> The people who originally wrote a lot of OSS and Linux software were envisioning a world where Adobe tools would be replaced by Gimp/Inkspace and the Ubuntu desktop would make Windows obsolete except for specific MS software/tasks. That never happened. The reason that never happened has nothing to do with the licenses. It happened because most purely open source programs have abysmal UX. Every time I open Inkscape…

So I share your sentiment. I still open Photoshop/Lightroom on my Windows laptop when I need them (although lately I've been trying to use DarkTable and RawTherapee for some projects) but yes, Gimp is far from being a high end tool. Illustrator still kills Inkscape (I worked with a hardcore OSS guy who said it's just a matter of training, what you're use to and what you start with. I could tell he'd never done any real graphical editing work ever).

But who is working on it? Obviously not you. Obviously not me. It's a lot of work. I've looked at code here and there and often said "..huh..that's not has bad as I..oh no wait..yea..yea it is..I wish I had the time to work on this."

If some of the Stallman-ish/revolutionary ideas had happened in the last decade, maybe all of us could spend 20 hours a week trying to fix/improve/rewrite the software we like/need. Today software devs are slaves to the industry. Even if we get paid well, many of us are still working for things that will bubble and die. The only things companies open source is middleware that can make them important.

Money is addictive and it's taken people away from that ideology that simply doesn't pay the rent. There's something deeply wrong with all of this, but we're in another state of hypernormalisation, so it's very difficult to see or address in a meaningful way.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#32

Post by icebraining »

TLLtchvL8KZ wrote: post #22
libeclipse wrote: post #4

I think there's two split types of developers. When I was younger, mostly hanging around on IRC servers and forums, coding just my own cool projects, I strongly believed in the GPL. All of my projects had it, and I wouldn't even dream of allowing someone to use my code without making their entire project open too. That's the first type I think. The second type is the more HN-style professional programmer. Now as I've…

>I feel we've lost ourselves in the freedom of users and forgotten about the people that make the applications for the users. To me the issue with the GPL is that it is incredibly dated; it was designed for the time back when the users were more often than not a developer. Things change in 30 years and the GPL has completely failed to adapt IMO. I see far more MIT and Apache than all version of the GPL these days, es…

I disagree, a non-developer user still benefits from the Four Freedoms, even if indirectly. Development is a service you can purchase, you don't need to do it yourself. And even if you can't afford that, as long as a few of the users are developers, chances are they'll release something others can use for their benefit.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#33

Post by lorenzhs »

pluma wrote: post #27
djsumdog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally understand where you're coming from and I shared some of this. I still believe heavily in the GPL and I think more permissive license have allowed a lot of companies to wave the banner of OSS while not having to really contribute things back to the community. I come from a perspective of hating the corporate world for the two decades I've been in it; feeling deeply overpaid compared to the guy who cleans my…

> I think more permissive license have allowed a lot of companies to wave the banner of OSS while not having to really contribute things back to the community. Another way to look at this is that it has allowed companies to contribute to open source at all. We'll never see how the industry would have developed if there had only been GPL and closed source with nothing in between but I believe we're better off this way…

But Android isn't really open. Without the Google Play Services, you can't use half of all apps, or even get push notifications without ruining battery life. Your device likely also uses a bunch of binary firmware blobs without which it wouldn't work. It's pretend-open.

Also, Chrome for Android isn't really open source either, see the FAQ: https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/faq "Chrome for Android is derived from Chromium. Since the launch of the first version, we have steadily open sourced all the critical components. You can build various Chromium components for Android as used in Chrome for Android using the instructions here."

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#34

Post by spacelizard »

josephg wrote: post #20
djsumdog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally understand where you're coming from and I shared some of this. I still believe heavily in the GPL and I think more permissive license have allowed a lot of companies to wave the banner of OSS while not having to really contribute things back to the community. I come from a perspective of hating the corporate world for the two decades I've been in it; feeling deeply overpaid compared to the guy who cleans my…

> The people who originally wrote a lot of OSS and Linux software were envisioning a world where Adobe tools would be replaced by Gimp/Inkspace and the Ubuntu desktop would make Windows obsolete except for specific MS software/tasks. That never happened. The reason that never happened has nothing to do with the licenses. It happened because most purely open source programs have abysmal UX. Every time I open Inkscape…

I agree, and it would be nice to have those things done. Free software has a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem now where there is a lot of demand for certain things like you mention, but it's difficult to find funding to actually do them. I don't know what the way forward is, but it's something our community needs to be better about.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#35

Post by hackits »

CJefferson wrote: post #3
grabcocque wrote: post #2

I think it's important to separate the GPLv2 which is still vital and alive, and the GPL v3 which is now generally regarded to have been a failure.

I'm not sure GPL v3 is a failure, but it has created a really bad taste -- at least 3 times I've been unable to link GPL V2 and GPL v3 code. In one case I reimplemented one piece of code, in the others I went in search of a BSD library instead.

Take this with a grain of salt. If you can prove that you project can work without the GPL V2/V3 code being present (eg... the GPL code isn't a major contributing factor in the working of your program) then it stands that under copyright law (Here in Australia) that it isn't a Derivative work and thus not infringing on the copyright owner.

Playing it safe GPL V2, give credit to the source code in your credits page and push back any changes you've made to their original source. GPL V3, you're kind of screwed (even linking) that you need to adhere to their license agreement and have your source code open source.

Personally for open source projects I use GPL V3, and leave a comment in the license agreement the business can contact me for a difference license that comes with support contract.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#36

Post by pjmlp »

Yes it is, in about 10 years time, Linux kernel might be one of the few surviving GPL projects in wider use.

We will get back to PD and shareware days, when releasing source code was a nice feature, but not necessarily compulsory.

The speed embedded OEM are replacing gcc with clang in their forks, without having to keep contributing back, is a good example of things will evolve.

Or the hardware companies that bundle *BSD instead of GNU/Linux on their boxes.

Or Apple and Google ongoing effort's to clean (L)GPL from their stacks.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#37

Post by Anon_2017124 »

libeclipse wrote: post #4

I think there's two split types of developers. When I was younger, mostly hanging around on IRC servers and forums, coding just my own cool projects, I strongly believed in the GPL. All of my projects had it, and I wouldn't even dream of allowing someone to use my code without making their entire project open too. That's the first type I think. The second type is the more HN-style professional programmer. Now as I've…

As you correctly say, if you want anyone to be able to do whatever, you're right with choosing a permissive (non-reciprocal) license.

GPL cares about the users of the software, not only the developers, and makes sure that, if they receive some software, they also get the source.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#38

Post by [deleted] »

libeclipse wrote: post #4

I think there's two split types of developers. When I was younger, mostly hanging around on IRC servers and forums, coding just my own cool projects, I strongly believed in the GPL. All of my projects had it, and I wouldn't even dream of allowing someone to use my code without making their entire project open too. That's the first type I think. The second type is the more HN-style professional programmer. Now as I've…

[deleted]

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#39

Post by kstenerud »

Anon_2017124 wrote: post #37
libeclipse wrote: post #4

I think there's two split types of developers. When I was younger, mostly hanging around on IRC servers and forums, coding just my own cool projects, I strongly believed in the GPL. All of my projects had it, and I wouldn't even dream of allowing someone to use my code without making their entire project open too. That's the first type I think. The second type is the more HN-style professional programmer. Now as I've…

As you correctly say, if you want anyone to be able to do whatever, you're right with choosing a permissive (non-reciprocal) license. GPL cares about the users of the software, not only the developers, and makes sure that, if they receive some software, they also get the source.

Non-developers don't care about the source.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#40

Post by charlesdm »

Symbiote wrote: post #30
charlesdm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very much this. If you make an open source library, and you don't intend to ever charge for it, then at least allow people to use it in their products, free or commercial, without having to open source the entire thing.

Why? Why not only let other people use it in their products, if they make their code available on the same basis as I released mine?

Well, guess we can have different opinions on this, but I would want the open source code I write to actually be used in cool (commercial and non-commercial) stuff. If you're pushing GPL, that is just not going to happen (often).

Code in itself isn't useful. You're not improving the world by writing code. You're improving the world with the impact that code can have and the value it can deliver.

Post reply on HN