Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Sourcers Drop Software Religion for Common Sense

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: Open Sourcers Drop Software Religion for Common Sense

#21

Post by tptacek »

nikcub wrote: post #6

even more pronounced when you look at web software. look at the most watched projects on Github and play spot the GPL license: https://github.com/popular/watched I couldn't count a single project. I have never used the GPL in any software I write because I want anybody to be able to use my software and contributions. Google, Microsoft, Apple (who are actively purging what remains of GPL code) et al will not adapt you…

I know there isn't an easy alternative to it, but that Github list is pretty wonky; things like impress.js and Devise are at the top of it, but are clearly not among the most important pieces of open source software. Similarly, I review other people's Rails apps for a living and have never seen a project use that particular top-of-the-list form builder.

I can only conclude that the number of Github users "watching" a particular repository is not a particularly useful metric for how good/important/popular that software is.

Finally, for obvious reasons, Github has a pronounced Ruby/Rails bias, and that community already has settled norms on licensing.

Re: Open Sourcers Drop Software Religion for Common Sense

#22

Post by bitdiddle »

nikcub wrote: post #13
vy8vWJlco wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

jQuery Diaspora Linux

jQuery is also MIT licensed, which is why Microsoft was able to bundle it. large parts of Diaspora are also dual-licensed (not sure what the breakdown is). I am still going through the list and haven't found a single GPL-only licensed project

how about Git itself?

Re: Open Sourcers Drop Software Religion for Common Sense

#23

Post by crusso »

vy8vWJlco wrote: post #16
crusso wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the old "you can catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar". The GPL is the strongest vinegar to businesses that may not mind participating in open source, but don't want to have their business assets dependent upon something so restrictive. As a developer you have a trade-off decision to make: Choose the license that restricts the use of your creation in hopes that it forces others to share, or choose a l…

Nothing wrong with choice. I think it's important that people treat me fairly. That's practicality, IMHO.

I guess. That's kind of the decision that a lot of console or heavy copy protection game producers make: We want to get paid for every copy of our game that is played.

Then a lot of no copy protection PC game producers make a different decision: We want as many people as possible to play our game. Some will pirate it and not pay us. We hope that many more will do the right thing and pay for it if they like it.

Re: Open Sourcers Drop Software Religion for Common Sense

#24

Post by skrebbel »

tptacek wrote: post #17

Ironically, Sleepycat couldn't have executed without the GPL; it's a fundamental part of their business model, which relies on dual licensing. There's more to the GPL than "religion". When you release code under BSD, MIT, or Apache, you give up all control of it. Anyone is free to commercialize it without adding any value. The better marketing & sales team can and will beat the origin of the software in the market. I…

That. GPL is excellent for a "take it and contribute back, or pay my next holiday - either are fine by me!". It's a very fair deal.

I'm not saying everybody should go GPL, I'm just saying it's great for many purposes. I came the other way from the open source zealots. I used to scream "viral effect!" whenever something was GPL, thought it was bad, bad, bad. Nowadays, when something is dual licensed GPL and commercial, I tend to become a happy customer.

Typically, the long-term prospects are lot better than with BSD software slammed on github with a "here you go" note attached. No evidence, btw, just a feeling.

Re: Open Sourcers Drop Software Religion for Common Sense

#25

Post by mikegerwitz »

nikcub wrote: post #7
vy8vWJlco wrote: post #2

The "practicality" argument doesn't hold water with me: none of it matters without freedom. If you care about code, the GPL gives you freedom by requiring that people give back in the manner they take: with code. It is only necessary because people weren't giving back. I can understand that someone might want to shirk the quid-pro-quo responsibilities of the GPL, but I won't be paying for that kind of anti-social pro…

"freedom by requiring" < see the contradiction? true freedom has no requirements or demands.

The free software movement aims to protect the freedom of the users, not developers (although the user could be a developer). Developers are in a position to control their users unfairly, so providing them the freedom under a permissive license does nothing but to further endanger the freedom of the user.

This is an important distinction. Those who focus on the freedom of other developers miss the point of the free software movement. Consider an individual looking to rob a bank with a pistol (as opposed to robbing a user's freedom with their own software). Before the robbery, they notice a permissive amory across the street. Your permissively licensed software is that armory. You are empowering that individual to blow a hole through the bank rather than hold someone at gunpoint.

Your software, as great as it is, can also be used to lure in users for exploitation. Nothing like a heavily armed robber with candy!

Re: Open Sourcers Drop Software Religion for Common Sense

#26

Post by vy8vWJlco »

crusso wrote: post #23
vy8vWJlco wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing wrong with choice. I think it's important that people treat me fairly. That's practicality, IMHO.

I guess. That's kind of the decision that a lot of console or heavy copy protection game producers make: We want to get paid for every copy of our game that is played. Then a lot of no copy protection PC game producers make a different decision: We want as many people as possible to play our game. Some will pirate it and not pay us. We hope that many more will do the right thing and pay for it if they like it.

Yep. Luckily the sky is rising! :) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120129/17272817580/sky-is...

Re: Open Sourcers Drop Software Religion for Common Sense

#27

Post by CurtHagenlocher »

kiloaper wrote: post #20
nikcub wrote: post #6

even more pronounced when you look at web software. look at the most watched projects on Github and play spot the GPL license: https://github.com/popular/watched I couldn't count a single project. I have never used the GPL in any software I write because I want anybody to be able to use my software and contributions. Google, Microsoft, Apple (who are actively purging what remains of GPL code) et al will not adapt you…

It's funny you point to GitHub considering git is GPLv2 licensed itself. I imagine many of the tools which make those projects possible are also GPL licensed.

OC should have said "GPLv3" instead of "GPL". Most companies are pretty comfortable with GPLv2.

Re: Open Sourcers Drop Software Religion for Common Sense

#28

Post by nikcub »

tptacek wrote: post #21
nikcub wrote: post #6

even more pronounced when you look at web software. look at the most watched projects on Github and play spot the GPL license: https://github.com/popular/watched I couldn't count a single project. I have never used the GPL in any software I write because I want anybody to be able to use my software and contributions. Google, Microsoft, Apple (who are actively purging what remains of GPL code) et al will not adapt you…

I know there isn't an easy alternative to it, but that Github list is pretty wonky; things like impress.js and Devise are at the top of it, but are clearly not among the most important pieces of open source software. Similarly, I review other people's Rails apps for a living and have never seen a project use that particular top-of-the-list form builder. I can only conclude that the number of Github users "watching" a…

I noticed that - the fork list isn't a good representation either. It would be interesting to get a sample across github, bitbucket, google code and whatever that site is called that .NET developer use.

I don't think a survey of all of those site s combined would fall far from the 90-95% BSD/MIT license rate you see in the GitHub sample (again, talking about web related open source software).

Anecdotally, I have also noticed that many Android/iOS/mobile libraries are also MIT/Apache/BSD.

Re: Open Sourcers Drop Software Religion for Common Sense

#29

Post by nikcub »

tptacek wrote: post #17

Ironically, Sleepycat couldn't have executed without the GPL; it's a fundamental part of their business model, which relies on dual licensing. There's more to the GPL than "religion". When you release code under BSD, MIT, or Apache, you give up all control of it. Anyone is free to commercialize it without adding any value. The better marketing & sales team can and will beat the origin of the software in the market. I…

The way this has come about with relation to web and internet software is that the actual applications being built are closed source but a lot of the libraries and commodity pieces of software are being open sourced with permissive licenses.

for eg. Twitter, Google, Facebook etc. produces and consumer a lot of open source software but their core products are still close source. You can segment out portions of your software stack and release them for free while still retaining a competitive advantage with your core application. This isn't an all-or-nothing decision and this hybrid approach is the most common.

I think Twitter is a good example. They both built and scaled up using open source and also contributed their own open source software, which has been improved upon by others and in-turn benefited Twitter. It didn't require a license where contribution was essential and nor did it require giving up any competitive advantage (i'd argue it solidified their position).

Re: Open Sourcers Drop Software Religion for Common Sense

#30

Post by nikcub »

bitdiddle wrote: post #22
nikcub wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

jQuery is also MIT licensed, which is why Microsoft was able to bundle it. large parts of Diaspora are also dual-licensed (not sure what the breakdown is). I am still going through the list and haven't found a single GPL-only licensed project

how about Git itself?

focused on internet and webapp software and the trend there, which is overwhelmingly tilted towards the permissive licenses. much more than the 50/50 split suggested in the OP.

so the Q is why is the GPL getting so little adoption amongst web developers.

Post reply on HN