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

111–120 of 242 posts

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#111

Post by wcummings »

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…

You're overlooking a big reason for the using the GPL I think: GPL projects are more attractive to certain communities of contributors. People are more willing to invest (potentially a lot of) their time in an open source project if they don't feel they're being taken advantage of. A lot of people don't feel great writing code for free if it's going to be relicensed and incorporated into a commercial product.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#112

Post by adrianN »

charlesdm wrote: post #40
Symbiote wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For some people, user freedom is a large chunk of the value.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#113

Post by dleslie »

sgentle wrote: post #62

> 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 will…

An anarchist ought not care what the license terms are; they are already operating in an ethical framework that revokes concern for a collection of words that rely on state violence to have meaning.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#114

Post by petre »

pjmlp wrote: post #92
dan00 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 contribute back and cooperate (up to a point). I don't know. For such a complex project like linux you can't do all by yourself and you most likely want all the improvements and extensions done by oth…

The *BSDs show clearly what would have happened, most hardware vendors that ship some BSD variant on their hardware don't contribute anything back.

That is simply not true. For instance iXsystems contributes back to FreeBSD snd also sponsors the foundation.

On the other hand a lot of WiFi router vendors violate the GPL by not releasing the code and contribute nothing back to Linux.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#115

Post by dleslie »

ajdlinux wrote: post #25

The last time I went through my employer's process for releasing an open source project, the attorney assigned to our case emailed to ask if we really wanted to choose the GPL, as we'd stated on the application form, because getting approval for MIT or Apache was going to be quicker. We advised that yes, we did want the GPL, and indeed we didn't run into any further problems. Keeping up the good fight in the midst of…

In my experience the barrier is always the lawyers.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#116

Post by dleslie »

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.

Thinking of yourself first and before others isn't necessarily unethical. You're seeing denigration where it doesn't exist.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#117

Post by asdfjlkasdf88 »

petre wrote: post #114
pjmlp wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The *BSDs show clearly what would have happened, most hardware vendors that ship some BSD variant on their hardware don't contribute anything back.

That is simply not true. For instance iXsystems contributes back to FreeBSD snd also sponsors the foundation. On the other hand a lot of WiFi router vendors violate the GPL by not releasing the code and contribute nothing back to Linux.

most != all

And one counter-example isn't enough refutation.

not saying i believe either of you. just saying, language matters.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#118

Post by phkahler »

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 emphasized anyone but by allowing developers to take the code proprietary, their users (which are using your code) are being denied the freedom you promote. This is of course the distinction between GPL and BSD-type licenses. One gives developers all the freedom they want while the other ensures that all users (including those using derivative works) are given those freedoms.

>> I feel we've lost ourselves in the freedom of users and forgotten about the people that make the applications for the users.

No, we have not. One form of license ensures all users have the right to do whatever they want with the code. The other form (which some call permissive) grants the right to deny others those freedoms. I understand both stances, but I believe calling the right to deny others rights "permissive" is rather misleading.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#119

Post by nialv7 »

notalaser wrote: post #14
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…

My path has been pretty much opposite: a long time ago, I was a big fan of BSD-flavored freedom and thought that commercial adoption of open technology was the best thing that could happen. After years of eating my own dogfood and seeing open code used solely as free work, with no regard to user or developer freedom, I'm not so convinced. Frankly, I was cynically happy when a lot of GNU projects were licensed under G…

> I was cynically happy when a lot of GNU projects were licensed under GPLv3, and suddenly everyone who locks down their firmware was sent scrambling for alternatives

This is not necessarily a good thing.

Lower adoption rate of GPL'd software means less freedom for the user.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#120

Post by ue_ »

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…

>Telling them they can't is not freedom.

There are different concepts and types of freedom; collapsing them all into one singular concept is incredibly reductive and misleading. There is also the freedom of the users to take into account, which the GPL tries to guarantee. Why should only the freedom of the developer matter?

>and forgotten about the people that make the applications for the users

The freedom of the developers matters. But as any jurist or philosopher will tell you, freedom does not mean the freedom to do whatever you want. This was noted by Hegel as he described the freedom of the savage being a kind of unrefined freedom, restricted.

Your argument is similar to saying that we should think of the freedom for the people who want to take away the rights of others. Arguably they should not have that "freedom" at all. Your argument is a very poor one.

Post reply on HN