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

181–190 of 242 posts

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#181

Post by snovv_crash »

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 have grown to really like the MPLv2. It gives the protections of GPL for the code you actually wrote (changes need to be released) while still allowing closed source software to use your code as a library (it doesn't require releasing files not included in your code).

This means that a wider range of people/projects are likely to use your code, but any bugfixes or in-file features need to be open sourced. This results in a higher quality of code, more complete and rounded libraries, and not everybody's kitchen sink gets sent upstream for potential merging.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#182

Post by snovv_crash »

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.

False. If I take a BSD/MIT library and fork it, I don't need to contribute the changes back.

The MPL(v2) forces forks to be open source, but any files added to the project can remain closed source allowing it to be used as a library for closed source applications.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#183

Post by motters »

For software I've written while working at companies I didn't have control over the license choice, but for that which I've written voluntarily nearly all of it (and there's quite a laundry list now) is under GPL or AGPL. This is because, as some other comments have mentioned, I want any other users of the software to have the same capabilities to change it as I did. I don't want there to be secret proprietary versions which then get distributed in closed form denying the potential for participation.

The ability of users to have genuine control over their systems has been under sustained attack for a long time. I may be only one developer but at least I can make a small ding in the dark empire of bad software practices.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#184

Post by michaelmrose »

ygaf wrote: post #63
buserror wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to agree, up to a point, however I still use the GPL because it at least gives me a leg to stand on for people actually ripping your code and selling it as is... (What I call the packagers) 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 contr…

>If my project had been BSD, I might have seen someone making money from my project and associate my name with something that I had zero control on. If he went along with his product being forced to be open, what then? It still has your name associated with it, he might still sell some copies. I'm just not getting the principles.

Most people wont buy something for money that they could have for free. Not just for utilitarian reasons. Although on one hand the logical consideration is do I value whatever I'm getting in exchange more than the money I am paying on the other hand the perception that someone is getting the software for free, adding 1% value and then charging you creates the impression that they are getting an overly large advantage out of the interaction and nobody likes this.

People would rather be objectively worse off rather than feel that they had been taken advantage of.

If we look at it from a utilitarian perspective having someone who didn't add much capture all of the commercial value seems to be pretty poor. If the feature he was adding was worthwhile I bet he could have been honest and convinced people to pay him to add it. Everyone would have benefited and paying him would have been worthwhile and necessary because while he couldn't have legally kept it closed source, he didn't have to write or release it at all.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#185

Post by phkahler »

joshuamorton wrote: post #167
phkahler wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Their users are not being denied the freedom to use my code, their users are being denied the freedom to use their code, which is their right. Unless they know it came from you and where to get it (which will not be advertised), they are. Also, after you die and your source code is gone, the derivative work could still go on to whatever success and none of the users of your code will have access to it except for t…

>Unless they know it came from you and where to get it (which will not be advertised), they are. And almost all licenses require attribution. >Also, after you die and your source code is gone, the derivative work could still go on to whatever success and none of the users of your code will have access to it except for that developer of the derivative work. This makes no sense. The source code of what I did will still…

>> This makes no sense. The source code of what I did will still be around, and still be attributed. Dying doesn't make my work disappear into the ether.

Yes it does, unless someone keeps it online or somehow available. But again, just because it technically exists somewhere doesn't mean a user of the derived work will know how to find it, nor what parts that work are actually covered by your code prior to finding it. You are starting to sound like someone deliberately not getting the point of this.

I see a valid need for "permissive" licenses, but the legitimate reasons are rarely cited by proponents of the licenses.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#186

Post by Thrillington »

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.

Extracting value through code is not an inherently positive moral exercise.

It may improve the world. From my perspective code that is built to extract value eventually attempts vendor lockin to create a long term revenue stream.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#187

Post by michaelmrose »

nkvoll wrote: post #169
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.

FWIW, HiDPI support does not work on Linux either. All icons, color palette, custom cursors are about half the size they should be on my 4k monitor. Scrolling is pretty choppy and it doesn't support smooth/inertial scrolling. So 3/5 of his listed issues exist on the Linux version.

Is this wayland/X what desktop environment? What gpu? What driver?

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#188

Post by mikegerwitz »

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 I want my source code under Apache-2.0, why should I have to change it to GPL just for you.

You don't have to. Don't use the GPL'd code. The author of the GPL'd work has chosen unwaivering freedom for the user over all else. You are free to write your own implementation. Why should that developer have to allow you to use her code in proprietary software?

Speaking personally: I'm a free software activist. I write my code in the hope that it will be useful to others, but under the condition that it always remain free/libre. I would rather my software never be used at all than be incorporated into a proprietary program. In certain cases, depending on the community (e.g. Web), I recognize that my choice might certainly mean that nobody will use the software. If I choose the LGPL for something to permit its use in proprietary software, then it's a strategic choice.[0] I currently have no LGPL'd projects.

[0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#189

Post by pythonaut_16 »

Latty wrote: post #178
pythonaut_16 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think there's a subtle difference. While dogmatic is often used when in context of religions it's not exclusively related to religion.

Google's definitions of religion:

>the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

>a particular system of faith and worship

>a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

and of dogmatic:

>inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true

I think the most precise use of religion is in connection with faith or a core belief system and lifestyle (which some open source advocates certainly fit), while strong positions in a particular topic or narrow scope, e.g. the GPL, tend to be better described as dogmatic.

Which, reading back to the parent comment and the scope of the thread, I guess either could be used fairly appropriately.

A better place of where I think dogmatic would be the preferred wording would be in reference to tabs vs. spaces or vim vs emacs.

Re: Is the GPL Really Declining?

#190

Post by thesuitonym »

snovv_crash wrote: post #182
thesuitonym wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what MIT and BSD licenses do.

False. If I take a BSD/MIT library and fork it, I don't need to contribute the changes back. The MPL(v2) forces forks to be open source, but any files added to the project can remain closed source allowing it to be used as a library for closed source applications.

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.
Post reply on HN