Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 f…
Is the GPL Really Declining?
41–50 of 242 posts
Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?
#42I 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 want anyone to be able to do whatever they want to with my code. That includes developers wanting to create a proprietary application. Telling them they can't is not freedom.
This is clearly up for debate.
Software-freedom as an interesting social factor is first and foremost about users, not software-publishers. Basically as a user of free software, I should be free to modify the code of the program I'm using.
While I as a professional programmer prefer using permissively licensed libraries (MIT/BSD), because they are easier to integrate, that means I take free software and make it into non-free, commercial software in the process.
That means the users of my work-output will enjoy less freedom than I had (as a publisher, a non-user). That's undebatable. So freedom is lost.
When not constrained by work-requirements w.r.t. licensing, and I write on my own spare-time hobby-projects, I'd like that code to be free and remain free.
I'd like that any user of that code I just wrote (note end-user, not someone bundling my code inside a different project) should have the freedom to modify and fix that code.
And the only way to guarantee that is with a copyleft license like the GPL, because it preserves end-user freedoms which BSD/MIT-style licenses (intentionally) doesn't.
So that's the only license I use.
Yes. That means developers just like me won't use it in commercial projects, but I don't care about that. I care about end-user freedom.
EDIT: Terminology, as outlined in child-post.
Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?
#43FWIW, both Los Angeles County and the City and County of San Francisco are leaning towards GPL for their open source voting system projects. And these are new, ambitious projects just starting out.
For Los Angeles, see page 24 of their RFI: http://vsap.lavote.net/request-for-information/
For San Francisco, see the March 2017 Director's Report here: http://sfgov.org/electionscommission/commission-agenda-packe...
Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?
#44Earlier 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…
The only reason I use GIMP is that Adobe software isn't available on Ubuntu. Sure, some artists have used it to create great works but that speaks more to their capabilities as artists than GIMP's as software.
Ubuntu is pretty solid but I would be a liar if I wouldn't admit it has serious flaws (e.g. making the user execute superuser shell commands to test and enable hibernation is pretty shitty UX). I'm tech-savvy enough to be willing to accept these trade-offs but I can easily see the appeal of macOS (even if the naysayers are right and Apple have lost their way).
I started off the year by giving a couple of alternative browsers a chance to wean me off my reliance on Google Chrome and even Brave was a more workable solution than Firefox: in order to make Firefox work properly I had to learn about its multiprocessing mode and individually test extensions from the official addon hub for compatibility. And while the dev tools certainly feel like a lot of effort went into them they come nowhere near the UX of Chrome's.
Even GitLab needed a lot of time to reach a state where it can be considered a serious alternative to GitHub (sans the community around GitHub, sadly). And GitLab has an entire company around it and is "merely" open core.
These days when evaluating software alternatives for any given problem the words "open source" are no longer a selling point for me. Even worse: if it's not tied to a commercial entity somehow deriving profit from it, I'm less inclined to use it. Self-hosted open source web app maintained by volunteers? That's usually code for terrible UX and show-stopping bugs.
Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
A good chunk of my paycheck proves you wrong - we develop custom addons for an Open Source software for non-developers (individuals and companies).
Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 re…
In what ways does Illustrator kill Inkscape?
Asking as a person who's never done "real" editing work, but has dabbled here and there and finds Inkscape to be one of the more pleasant OSS projects. I wholeheartedly agree that Photoshop kills GIMP, and I understand the reasons why. So I'm curious what the reasons are for Inkscape v. Illustrator since I haven't run across them?
Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?
#47I 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.
GPL 3 was about naking abuse and exploitation of GPL 2 harder. Seeing it as a failure shows our industry in a very sad light. This might ve a bit melodramatic way to state it, but GPL 3 failing means evil thriumphing.
Which is the reality as companies doing "tivotization" moved into MIT style licenses, which allowed them to do exactly that.
Even Apple and Google on their own products
Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?
#48I 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 want anyone to be able to do whatever they want to with my code. That includes developers wanting to create a proprietary application. Telling them they can't is not freedom.
You reverse cause and effect. The GPL is what you choose (or in this case choose not) to have the effect you mention. You're not forced to use the GPL nor the projects which uses it.
> I've realised that the GPL licence just causes more pain and frustration to developers.
It doesn't. If it causes pain and frustration it's because GPL forces people into thinking/believing into a political agenda. Disagreeing on political things is always painful. So the problem is not the GPL. The difficulty is that some choose the GPL because of the political thing and therefore, they force (the GPL helps a lot at taht) other developers to interrogate themselves about those political questions. And they may get frustrated or dad or whatever, but ultimately, they realize that they don't align with the ideas embodied in the GPL, or in another way, they realize the cost of sticking to the GPL.
The GPL is not the problem. It suits people whose mind are aligned with the FSF's goals, and for them it's perfectly fine. Just realize that it's not for you.
Now, having practiced the GPL, I can assure you that it definitely embodies the political ideals of the FSF and that sooner or later, you'll come to confront with people who don't get it, and "confront" is not a weak word. Know what you stand for.
Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?
#49I've always likened GPL promoters and promoters of the more permissive licenses to conservatives vs liberals.
GPL users are more worried about someone taking and not giving back. Other license users are more worried about lost opportunity to proliferate. In the same way, conservatives are more worried about bad behavior among their fellow citizens, whereas liberals are more worried about lost opportunities for their fellow citizens to grow and flourish. In every endeavor, there is risk and opportunity, and they must be balanced somehow. Conservatives err on the side of reducing risk of bad actors, who can spoil it for everyone. Liberals err on the side of reducing lost opportunities, which prevent us from going forward as a whole.
It's also why I won't argue in favor of one over the other. You'd have about as much success arguing in in favor of liberal ideals to a conservative, or conservative ideals to a liberal. Their reasoning is emotional, which is why it gets uncomfortable real fast, and they dig their heels in, pulling all sorts of "facts" to prove their side.
Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 f…
I wrote that comment using Chrome (by Google, a company that makes money) on Ubuntu (by Canonical, a company that makes money) so your argument isn't really relevant.
Although to be fair, Google Chrome itself is not open source (although Chromium is). The main reason I'm using Chrome rather than Chromium is that I like the closed source parts too (e.g. the Google-specific integrations).