Is the GPL Really Declining? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#231

Post by jra_samba » Fri, May 05, 2017, 8:52 AM UTC

2trill2spill wrote: post #192

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 ?

>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. Literally every company you mentioned contributes code to FreeBSD, so what are you even talking about[1][2][3]? [1]: https://freshbsd.org/sear…

Oh great, FreeBSD has the WAFL filesystem now ! That's great news, I must have missed the release announcement ! Is it in the main repository ?

Hint, shitty little few line fixes != contributing back.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#232

Post by jra_samba » Fri, May 05, 2017, 8:55 AM UTC

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.

Where can I download the Isilon OneFS code ? Are you hosting it in the FreeBSD repository ? I'm so glad it got released, and so like.EMC to do it so modestly without a press release.

Or are you just pointing at minor fixes random engineers from these companies are doing occasionally ?

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#233

Post by erikbye » Fri, May 05, 2017, 9:19 AM UTC

s73ver wrote: post #165

erikbye wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. You are talking about problems with the software on a proprietary system... Sorry, I don't support closed platforms. These problems do not exist on the Linux version.

You asked what needed to happen. They told you. Even if you, yourself don't want to do it, the attitude you've taken here is exactly the attitude which drives people away from OSS.

I don't see people driven away from OSS. Rather I see even big corporations embrace it. Even Microsoft. And look at the explosion of public projects with Github.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#234

Post by erikbye » Fri, May 05, 2017, 9:39 AM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #93

erikbye wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source and free software is thriving. Always have. Look around you. Look at what runs the internet you use. Look at the number of projects and the number of contributors.

Free software has always thrived all the way back to magazine listenings, PD and several variations of shareware, postware, beerware, whateverwere. Adoption of business friendly licenses in detriment of GPL, means we will get back to those days.

A business friendly license (like BSD) usually results in exactly what Apple has done. Take whatever they want, close it off, and hardly contribute back upstream.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#235

Post by 2trill2spill » Fri, May 05, 2017, 12:21 PM UTC

jra_samba wrote: post #231

2trill2spill wrote: post #192

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. Literally every company you mentioned contributes code to FreeBSD, so what are you even talking about[1][2][3]? [1]: https://freshbsd.org/sear…

Oh great, FreeBSD has the WAFL filesystem now ! That's great news, I must have missed the release announcement ! Is it in the main repository ? Hint, shitty little few line fixes != contributing back.

> Oh great, FreeBSD has the WAFL filesystem now ! That's great news, I must have missed the release announcement ! Is it in the main repository ? Hint, shitty little few line fixes != contributing back.

What a disingenuous response, Linux does not have the WAFL Filesystem and so why point out wether FreeBSD has it or not. Also NetAPP released Bhyve and EMC Isilon has made over 4000 commits to the FreeBSD tree, those are serious contributions regardless off what you say.

As a member of the Software Freedom Conservancy board you should seriously stop spreading Misinformation and being so dismissive of other FLOSS projects.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#236

Post by oblio » Fri, May 05, 2017, 12:49 PM UTC

erikbye wrote: post #227

oblio wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're both right. The problem is, his side is "winning". Linux is quite hostile to proprietary software, so not that many people will use Linux since apps > OS. So if OSS doesn't push for better apps even on proprietary systems, it won't even get out of this catch 22.

Linux is big and unspecific. But if we talk about a user count of Linux on the desktop vs OS X/macOS on the desktop, then Linux is not far behind, according to various statistics. Linux numbers are actually a lot higher than the recorded stats, as those are just based on web browser information. Many Linux users do not even use a browser that is counted in these statistics. People often seem to forget just how small…

I'm a Windows user primarily. Which also falls into the proprietary category. And its desktop market share is far from small :)

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#237

Post by ljw1001 » Fri, May 05, 2017, 11:49 PM UTC

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 agree with the edit. If you build a partial solution (in other words, a library designed to be compiled with other code) and GPL it, you're making it difficult to use, but if you're providing a finished product (whether that's an App or an OS), a GPL license can make perfect sense.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#238

Post by loup-vaillant » Sat, May 06, 2017, 11:13 AM UTC

erikbye wrote: post #226

loup-vaillant wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit of a problem. Proprietary OS users are going to judge Inkscape (or Gimp, or any other Free Software) from what they see on their platform. If it lags and doesn't support High DPI on their platform, they're going to assume the same is true of the GNU/Linux version. Some users won't switch because of this faulty assumption. Native UI… while there is little point it catering to users who won't switch anyway…

To me, cross-platform is not the holy grail--Linux is fragmented enough as it is. And certainly not to a platform like Apple's. Porting free software to a walled garden is grotesque. I think focus and efforts should be directed at making good software for Linux. And I do not think that porting OSS and free software to closed systems is a good strategy for converting users. Users switch from macOS and Windows to Linux…

It's not just a matter of luring people in. Some people who want to switch to GNU/Linux won't because "Inkscape sucks" or something. I bet Gimp and Libre Office have similar issues. MacOS users are especially problematic because they're so vocal.

That said, I think this is but a small part of the problem. The bigger enemies are the bundling of Windows with new computer (no separate purchase of the OS), and windows-only games. They're the main reasons behind the proprietary hegemony on the desktop.

When so few desktop computer run Linux, half-heartedly supporting Windows and MacOS comes of as a bit haughty. But if Free platforms are the norm, supporting the proprietary ones at all will actually sound generous.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#239

Post by quadrangle » Tue, May 09, 2017, 6:21 AM UTC

ori_b wrote: post #204

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. Of course. The MIT license is the legal equivalent of putting shit out on your lawn with a big 'FREE' sign. There's no need to protect that. The GPL requires you to pay the developers in contributions, which requires enforcement.

> The GPL requires you to pay the developers in contributions

No it does not. The GPL is a downstream license. It requires you pass on the freedoms if you share with others. It does not have any requirement that anything be upstreamed back to the place you got the software from.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#240

Post by quadrangle » Tue, May 09, 2017, 6:23 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #212

thesuitonym wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay but that's not what I was replying to. The post I replied to made no mention of reciprocity, only saying that the original code was available.

He explicitly calls out "copyleft source code." That means reciprocity.

Copyleft is about pay-it-forward not reciprocity. There's zero reciprocity in copyleft besides the incidental fact that updates paid-forward to others might be discovered and accessed by the original person who gave you the software (or that you could share the updates back in reciprocity, but that's not part of the license, it's just something you might do).