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

61–70 of 242 posts

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#61

Post by kstenerud »

wiz21c wrote: post #54
kstenerud wrote: post #49

I'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…

To put it in a more positive way : GPL users think about others first and themselves second. Anti-GPL people think the other way around. I wouldn't say either is good or bad, but I'd say they sure don't mix well together.

Wow, that was fast. You're pro-GPL, and it shows in how you colored your words to favor your side and denigrate the other.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#62

Post by sgentle »

> The GPL is a fine open source license that grants all the permissions needed by developer communities that adopt it. There is no sense in which it is not "permissive", so to use that term as an antonym to "copyleft" verges on abuse.

Sigh. This attitude makes it enormously difficult to have any kind of conversation about the tradeoffs of open source licenses, because it reveals a profound lack of perspective or willingness to admit that even your darling license isn't perfect.

Can we not just accept that there are two different attitudes towards freedom? One says that true freedom being able to do whatever you want, the other says true freedom is restricting others from infringing on your freedom (and being thus restricted in turn).

This is anarchism vs libertarianism, Jon Stewart vs Bill Maher liberalism, and non-interventionism vs neoconservatism. Do you preserve freedom even if you need to do it by causing unfreedom? It's a question that has resisted all attempts to find a simple answer despite generations of attempts.

It could be that all these people just need to read the GPL to find out that there's no sense in which being required to do something is not permissive. Or perhaps a little humility is in order, and we could make the effort the understand that different ideologies can, if not agree, at least respect each other.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#63

Post by ygaf »

buserror wrote: post #17
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 tend to agree, up to a point, however I still use the GPL because it at least gives me a leg to stand on for people actually ripping your code and selling it as is... (What I call the packagers) I'm sure that if Linux wasn't GPL, you'd have 'vendors' selling 'HP Linux' and 'Corp Linux' to their locked in customers in no time at all. The only reason Linux grew up to this point is that the vendors are forced to contr…

>If my project had been BSD, I might have seen someone making money from my project and associate my name with something that I had zero control on.

If he went along with his product being forced to be open, what then? It still has your name associated with it, he might still sell some copies. I'm just not getting the principles.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#64

Post by wiz21c »

kstenerud wrote: post #61
wiz21c wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put it in a more positive way : GPL users think about others first and themselves second. Anti-GPL people think the other way around. I wouldn't say either is good or bad, but I'd say they sure don't mix well together.

Wow, that was fast. You're pro-GPL, and it shows in how you colored your words to favor your side and denigrate the other.

well, just like the OP I guess :-)

But frankly I didn't mean to make it sound better. I truly think that some people think for themselves first and for the others second. It's not a matter of selfishness, it's a matter of direction. I can think about many people who were positive for the society in both categories. And I'd even say that we tend to change our "colour" every now and then.

For example, many private companies are greedy, but it doesn't stop them to provide good things to me (it'd be better if they gave them away for free, but well, they have to make a living too). I'd say GPL is the other direction but as many mentioned, although we may like the idea, we have to recognize that the success (and therefore the value for society) is not exactly massive.

But you're right I'm rather "pro GPL, anti capital and maybe a bit of an anarchist too" :-) But well, it doesn't prevent me to work on commercial things and GPL things :-) The fact is that it's very tough to discuss political ideas without getting too involved.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#65

Post by erikbye »

djsumdog wrote: post #31
josephg wrote: post #20

Earlier 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…

> 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).

Could you expound on what DarkTable, GIMP, and Inkscape needs to be more comparable to the Windows/Mac alternatives? What are the crucial, missing features?

As a hobbyist photographer and video editor, who has used Lightroom and Photoshop extensively, I find that I manage fine with alternatives available on Linux.

> 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."

I am working on it. A lot of us are. But we need to know what to implement. We need bug reports and feature requests. DarkTable alone has almost 20 000 commits and 200 contributors. The Linux kernel has about a 1000 contributors for every release.

Does it look like we're not working on it?

And money? ... Well, yes, most HN commenters seem to be very money-centered. After all, it's a site about starting new crappy companies, pushing shitty, useless products noone needs. They don't give a shit what they partake in, as long as the paycheck is right.

But, nevermind that.

A lot of open source contributors are paid full time to do this. So you can work on open source 24/7 and get a fat paycheck, if that's your thing. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Then there are those who actually code because they like it, you know. Because it's their passion. They might endure a shitty job to make a living, but in a weekend they do 50 commits to open source projects.

Be a slave if you want, I choose not to. I work on whatever I want.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#66

Post by pluma »

wiz21c wrote: post #48
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 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…

You're not forced to use anything.

The problem is that many projects choose licenses without carefully assessing all the trade-offs. If someone already built the thing you need but chose to release it under the GPL it might as well not exist if you can't use GPL code in your project. This is especially true if the value added by the library is minute in comparison to the overall scope of the project (this is by design). Just ask any developer who inherited a non-GPL project from a junior developer who doesn't understand licenses and accidentally used GNU readline.

If a library naively omits the license altogether (based on a widespread misunderstanding that "no license" means "public domain"), they will usually be able to switch to an open source license easily.

If a library naively uses a permissive license, you can simply incorporate them in your project (whether that project is GPL or not).

If a library naively uses the GPL, not only are they likely locked into it until the end of time but the code might as well not have been written at all unless your project is already GPL or you are willing and able to switch your license to GPL.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#67

Post by lorenzhs »

icebraining wrote: post #41
lorenzhs wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/lkgr/docs/a... https://download-chromium.appspot.com/?platform=Android&type...

Ah, my bad, I didn't know you could build Chromium for Android. That second link hasn't been updated in over a year, though.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#68

Post by buserror »

ygaf wrote: post #63
buserror wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to agree, up to a point, however I still use the GPL because it at least gives me a leg to stand on for people actually ripping your code and selling it as is... (What I call the packagers) I'm sure that if Linux wasn't GPL, you'd have 'vendors' selling 'HP Linux' and 'Corp Linux' to their locked in customers in no time at all. The only reason Linux grew up to this point is that the vendors are forced to contr…

>If my project had been BSD, I might have seen someone making money from my project and associate my name with something that I had zero control on. If he went along with his product being forced to be open, what then? It still has your name associated with it, he might still sell some copies. I'm just not getting the principles.

I would just have taken his source, compiled it and provided it for free -- he had no real intentions of opening it, and in fact never released his 'code' afterward, which proved my point.

it's not the first time I see that, at my previous company, a guy took most of my in-house (closed source) middleware layers and was selling them as a 'product' as is on the interweb.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#69

Post by pluma »

icebraining wrote: post #45
kstenerud wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

In what way is that different for the end user compared to a closed source product with a public extension API?

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#70

Post by icebraining »

kstenerud wrote: post #51
icebraining wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good chunk of my paycheck proves you wrong - we develop custom addons for an Open Source software for non-developers (individuals and companies).

In what way does a paycheck prove me wrong? I could just as easily argue that a good chunk of my paycheck proves that always bracing conditionals is something companies care about.

If bracing conditionals was indispensable for providing your services, I'd argue that they would.
Post reply on HN