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

171–180 of 242 posts

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#171

Post by thesuitonym »

mook wrote: post #136
phkahler wrote: post #118

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 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…

Don't forget the weak-copyleft licenses like the MPL, where it's perfectly fine to use it in commercial projects, but all users are guaranteed access to the copyleft source code (but not the proprietary code on top).

This is exactly what MIT and BSD licenses do.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#172

Post by placeybordeaux »

dleslie wrote: post #113
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.

Depends on if you are being pragmatic or not.

Even if you don't believe that the state should enforce it's will on you over the license of the code you are using, it will try.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#173

Post by orkoden »

pluma wrote: post #44
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…

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 e…

GitLab is a good example of excellent software. It has a proper business model and has built a great community.

Most Linux desktop applications sadly have no good business model. If you have a business model you can pay developers, designers, support, writers, etc.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#174

Post by thesuitonym »

X86BSD wrote: post #163
jra_samba wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For every iXsystems (who are excellent Free Software citizens) you have many NetApp, EMC and Isilons, who use the FreeBSD code to build profitable products on and give nothing in return. NetApp is a very good example, as they contribute NFS code back to Linux but not FreeBSD. Why do you think that might be ?

A more complete lie you could not have stated. Check the FreeBSD commit logs. All those vendors commit code back to the project. I see commits almost everyday from them. But thanks for spewing lies.

It's easier to hand out these alternative facts that support the GPL's mission.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#175

Post by geokon »

megous wrote: post #150
geokon wrote: post #127

I'm a bit surprised "dual licensing" hasn't come up at all in this discussion. To me that is the most logical next-step from the GPL. (ex: The Qt/JUCE people are using it to great effect) - If you want to work on expanding on what I started and then sharing it with everyone, then that's great! - If you want to make money with my work - then lets get in touch and work out some compensation. Seems only fair.. no? It's…

Well, I contributed to the dual licensed project, only to see the company increasing the price of their (somewhat related) monetized project 7 fold or so, screwing people over on the related product. Of course the contributors get nothing for their copyright assignment. It's like thank you for your contribution to our documentation system, now pay 7 times more for our main product you're also using. I'm wary of these…

Maybe I'm not understanding your point... you only pay if you want to use it in a closed source capacity. The alternative (just a vanilla copy-left license) would mean it's simply impossible to use in a closed source project at all.

So if all you do is write open source software, there is no difference for you. And if you write closed source software (or some project/client suddenly requires it of your for some reason) then you have something you can do.

It seems like a win-win?

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#176

Post by arglwarg »

thesuitonym wrote: post #171
mook wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget the weak-copyleft licenses like the MPL, where it's perfectly fine to use it in commercial projects, but all users are guaranteed access to the copyleft source code (but not the proprietary code on top).

This is exactly what MIT and BSD licenses do.

Nope (also that would imply there is not functional difference between non-reciprocal licenses like MIT/BSD and a reciprocal one like MPLv2).

The original article highlights LibreOffice and its success using the reciprocal MPLv2 not without reason.

[Edit: mixed up the first paragraph.]

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#177

Post by joshuamorton »

phkahler wrote: post #166
joshuamorton wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Their users are not being denied the…

>> The cynic in me really thinks its important to wonder why there exists a GNU, and not an organization formed around and sustained by the MIT license. The cynic is me says the answer is that the people interested in MIT licensing are not very interested in sharing their work with others in an organization. Don't get me wrong, there are instances where MIT or BSD licenses make sense. Desktop software is not one of t…

>The cynic is me says the answer is that the people interested in MIT licensing are not very interested in sharing their work with others in an organization.

What does this mean?

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#178

Post by Latty »

pythonaut_16 wrote: post #162
dbcurtis wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've said for a long time that people should choose a license they way the choose a screwdriver, not the way they choose a religion. Your comment touches on both parts of that. Want code to be open forever, and for you and your contributors to not be taken commercial advantage of? GPL could be a good choice. Do you desire total world domination (for a new protocol, for instance) then go with something like MIT that a…

Somewhat off topic, but I've noticed people using the word 'religious' in arguments like this to mean more or less 'positions that one holds that are not based on logical reasoning but strong personal preference'. Wouldn't dogmatic be the more appropriate word choice?

I'd argue that being dogmatic is a subset of being religious, and the superset of the term "religious" is applicable to the analogy at hand.

Of course, if you have a more favourable view of religion than me, you might disagree.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#179

Post by CalChris »

ksec wrote: post #55
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…

“If a man is not a socialist when he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.” - Winston Churchill I think this sums it up.

And if man is not a socialist when he's 60, he has no health insurance.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#180

Post by dlandis »

geokon wrote: post #127

I'm a bit surprised "dual licensing" hasn't come up at all in this discussion. To me that is the most logical next-step from the GPL. (ex: The Qt/JUCE people are using it to great effect) - If you want to work on expanding on what I started and then sharing it with everyone, then that's great! - If you want to make money with my work - then lets get in touch and work out some compensation. Seems only fair.. no? It's…

iText PDF is a popular Java library that does this: http://itextpdf.com/Pricing
Post reply on HN