My Personal Journey from MIT to GPL • Hacker News Board

Re: My Personal Journey from MIT to GPL

#151

Post by otikik » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

I use MIT (compared to GPL) because it's a low-maintenance library.

When I have published stuff in GPL, I would have had someone from (say) the Netherlands opening an issue asking "hey, can I use this library for doing so-and-so?". And I had to go and check so-and-so and check the again library and re-read the license and after I was not sure because I am not a lawyer and GPL text is fairly dense. Even if I was a lawyer, I would not be familiar with the legal requirements for someone from Netherlands.

One of the reasons I spend my free time doing open source is that I have fun. Reading legal text is the opposite of fun to me. So I moved to MIT. I did not have more of those legal questions.

Re: My Personal Journey from MIT to GPL

#152

Post by Iv » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

The question that remains is basically "what is your stance on the Great IP war?"

I agree that the world would be better if all software was public domain and that the GPL is an inferior option.

In a world where proprietary software is the norm though, GPL is a way to fight back this trend.

I think GPL makes a lot of sense on software that make computers easier to use or that have privacy implications: browsers for instance.

Some other times, you just want to help the whole world, including the software industry, stop reinventing the wheel. Typically with a lib that solves a specific problem once and for all. There public domain or MIT/BSD make sense.

Re: My Personal Journey from MIT to GPL

#153

Post by jbotz » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

aroberge wrote: post #103

I teach Physics and Math. As a student, I enjoyed the freedom to consult textbooks, learn about new computation methods and be able to use them later when needed without worrying about potential restrictions. And I want my students to enjoy the same freedom. In my first projects, I used the GPL license but have moved since to almost always using the MIT License or, sometimes and when appropriate, CC-0. When I find so…

I think you misunderstand copyright... you can't violate a license (that's based on copyright) by using ideas you saw in the source code. You really have to actually copy, verbatim, a significant chunk of code to be in violation of a software copyright. Sure, what constitutes a significant chunk is somewhat open to interpretation, but nobody who releases their software under the GPL is likely to ask a court for a ridiculously restrictive interpretation! I'm pretty sure Richard Stallman would be horrified by what you're saying here.

Re: My Personal Journey from MIT to GPL

#154

Post by hlkps » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #78

dmm wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use the GPL because I want every user of my software to have the right to use, examine, modify and create derivative works. Every user, not just programmer and entrepreneurs making products. I want to live in a world where software, which plays an increasingly important role in our lives, can be modified by anyone. Imagine if only google could fix your plumbing I've found that programmers tend to frame licenses in…

> I've found that programmers tend to frame licenses in they way you have, placing emphasis on how the GPL affects them and describing the GPL as a way to enforce tit-for-tat but software is such an important part of everyone's life now that it's worth considering how licenses affect non-developers too. That's the point people keep forgetting. GPL wasn't created to benefit developers, it was created to benefit end us…

My iPhone has a BSD-licenced kernel. Having that kernel under that licence benefits me as an end user of the product. Maybe having used another kernel would've resulted in a less stable mobile that would not have taken off.

Re: My Personal Journey from MIT to GPL

#155

Post by ddebernardy » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

I went the other way around. I used to mostly release GPL code, and then one day switched to MIT and never turned back. I've profited from code written by others; others should be able to do the same under whichever license they prefer.

There's a simpler way to address the problem outlined by OP: just refuse to consider binding software dependencies whose source you can't read. (It doesn't necessarily mean FOSS, as in I'm OK with paying to get the software; but I do want to be able to read the source code.) To me using such a dependency whose source code I can't read is just a non-starter.

Re: My Personal Journey from MIT to GPL

#156

Post by threwawasy1228 » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

wrsh07 wrote: post #140

jahewson wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who have power over you are, by definition, already empowered. Whether or not you give them something for free isn't going to move the needle.

Easy counter example: cockroach labs & Amazon Why did cockroach decide on their new business license?

I don't think that is a fair counter example since it isn't actually straight GPL and provides a different type of leverage than GPL does, which is what we were discussing. The Cockroach Community License[0] was created specifically to fit their needs, and it differs from GPL in several ways.

[0] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/cockroachdb-community-license/

Re: My Personal Journey from MIT to GPL

#157

Post by letsgoyeti » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

Not a troll question, so please bear with me...

From the perspective of the author of a piece of software wanting downstream changes contributed back, I think GPL makes total sense.

From the deontological perspective of a consumer that considers closed source code immoral (aka Stallman's view if I understand it correctly), it doesn't make much sense to me.

Consider the example where you go to a bakery and ask for a cake. Most people, I think, would agree that it would be unreasonable for a buyer of the cake to consider it immoral that the baker doesn't release the recipe to the cake. What makes software special?

Re: My Personal Journey from MIT to GPL

#158

Post by kemitchell » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:21 PM UTC

progval wrote: post #149

kemitchell wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a lawyer, and I really appreciated your "free" versus "fair" line. One tidbit on the GPLs: They require you to share alike if you share the software with others, but do not require you to share the software with others. You can make changes and larger programs entirely for your own or your company's internal use, and not share anything. The GPLs mention this explicitly, and implement it using concepts like "dist…

> when it turned out folks often ran software for others to use over networks aka the SaaS/cloud loophole

"ASP Loophole" or "The Google Problem" at the time.

Re: My Personal Journey from MIT to GPL

#159

Post by kerkeslager » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:24 PM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #150

kerkeslager wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that means a professor wants to put the work into their course and help to instruct a class with it, that is great too. Just to be very clear, neither the MIT nor GPL licenses prevent this.

Under a strict interpretation of the GPL, a student who copied code out of a textbook to use in a commercial project would be infringing the license. I've never come across this with GPL code, but I've been a bit uncomfortable about reading Numerical Recipes too closely because their code is restrictively licensed.

> Under a strict interpretation of the GPL, a student who copied code out of a textbook to use in a commercial project would be infringing the license.

This interpretation is very surprising to me. Could you point out what language in the GPL you're interpreting in this way?

Re: My Personal Journey from MIT to GPL

#160

Post by slim » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

  Even once I started using Linux as my daily driver, however, it took a while still for the importance of free software to set in

same here. Even though, I'm a Linux user since 1995, I just understood the true meaning of free software last year (maybe because I'm not a native English speaker). I realized that it means the software is free, not me. It's kind of respect to the software as something important in our lives.