Is the GPL Really Declining?

Post by wiz21c » Thu, May 04, 2017, 9:36 AM UTC

pluma wrote: post #66

wiz21c wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 desi…

Post by erikbye » Thu, May 04, 2017, 9:40 AM UTC

lorenzhs wrote: post #77

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…

Your observations don't correlate with the actual political opinions of prominent advocates of what boils down to the ages-old free software vs open source split. You don't need to look further than ESR for a striking counterexample.

Post by erikbye » Thu, May 04, 2017, 9:44 AM UTC

dagw wrote: post #18

Comparing the mid to late 90s with today it seems hackers have on the whole become more commercially minded. Back in the 90s there was a more idealistic and 'punk' ethos surrounding the hacker scene with documents like the Hacker Manifesto being a thing people actually believed in and aspired to. The GPL fit right into that. Then the world changed a bit and all of a sudden people realized that you could become both a…

Post by erikbye » Thu, May 04, 2017, 9:56 AM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #39

Anon_2017124 wrote: post #37

Earlier 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.

Post by erikbye » Thu, May 04, 2017, 10:08 AM UTC

charlesdm wrote: post #8

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…

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.