“I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD” • Hacker News Board

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#181

Post by vsw02 » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:13 AM UTC

yosamino wrote: post #175

vsw02 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You kind of gave up the game by pointing out that GPL-folk distinguish between developers and users. It’s the key flaw in the GPL approach and all you need do is scroll a little bit to find a developer being told to fuck off for merely questioning the source disclosure requirement of GPL. Why do the authors of software command less respect than users thereof from those ostensibly working to elevate software? Develope…

> Developers are users too. They use code. The whole point of the GPL is that the reverse is true as well. If I - the user of the software - wants to become a developer of this software I can only do so if I have access to the source code. That is not "mandating behaviour", if you are the original developer of a piece of software, you are free to take it closed source any time you wish. If you benefitted from having…

You have not understood my point at all. If you think I feel attacked in response to a comment laboriously explaining why two sides have been locked in pointless battle for decades, you’ve taken a point of view from me that simply doesn’t exist. The conclusion you’re drawing, particularly that I have any interest in denying someone rights or that my criticism of GPL implies a wish to harm others’ freedoms, is interesting in itself and speaks to what I’m saying (and some I’m not).

I prefer offering more rights to all my users, including those GPL advocates tend to perceive as exploitative, which is why I use more permissive licenses than GPL in my software. I don’t lose sleep over Boeing patching a random library I wrote and not sharing the patch. It’s genuinely that simple. We have different priorities and shit we care about, and I can have mine without excluding yours or entering a confrontation where someone feels “attacked” over IP law (of all the things).

And no, what you’re saying isn’t the whole point of the GPL. I’ll give you a point but there are plenty of other rationales behind it, many spoken in this thread.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#182

Post by globular-toast » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:14 AM UTC

jeroenhd wrote: post #122

globular-toast wrote: post #104

I dislike people calling the GPL "viral". The thing that is viral is copyright. Copyright is baked into law and nobody can escape it. If you relinquish your own copyright then as soon as someone modifies the work copyright comes back. Copyleft is the only antidote we have for copyright. All Stallman et al really want is to "switch off" copyright. That would be obvious if people would listen to his talks. But instead…

I consider the viral thing of copyright a good thing, similar to a meme going viral. While technically the law, people were pretty upset when a "meme tax" was being discussed because the copyright owners of the sources of many memes were seeking compensation. The idea of going viral as making it something everyone can partake in and something nobody can tell you not to do as long as you don't try to restrict others i…

Most reasonable people agree that copyright on creative works is a good thing, but it has to be short. 10 years is plenty. What we currently have is "life plus 70 years"! That means well over 100 years. 100 years! It's totally insane, but most people just don't question it.

Are we really to believe that there is anyone out there encouraged to write because they know their work will still be copyrighted for 70 years after they die?

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#183

Post by trasz » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:14 AM UTC

drran wrote: post #162

trasz wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you show a scenario demonstrating how GPL prevents this from happening?

GPL prevents this from happening by requiring your competitor to open the code under the same license. For example, Oracle tried to outcompete RedHat by cloning the RedHat Linux into Oracle Unbreakable Linux.

So, without GPL, how would Oracle render RedHat useless with telemetry? And why didn't it prevent the Audacity drama?

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#184

Post by oliwarner » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:15 AM UTC

jbluepolarbear wrote: post #170

stavros wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the GPL is becoming irrelevant and is displaced by permissive licenses Is it really? I've recently switched to AGPL because I specifically don't want you using my stuff if you aren't going to give back. If you want to make money off something, feel free to pay for the initial investment, instead of using my work for free. > Developers do not collectively or exclusively want to work for free and live a life of pover…

You sound like a great person to be around. Why would I pay you to use your foss when I can read it, understand it, improve it, and never even let you know about it because I decided to write my own version instead. Happens all the time because GPL is so restrictive. It’s easier and more cost effective to just rewrite the whole library than use a GPL one.

It's easier and more cost effective to buy a proprietary license from the author.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#185

Post by stavros » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:15 AM UTC

oliwarner wrote: post #177

stavros wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the GPL is becoming irrelevant and is displaced by permissive licenses Is it really? I've recently switched to AGPL because I specifically don't want you using my stuff if you aren't going to give back. If you want to make money off something, feel free to pay for the initial investment, instead of using my work for free. > Developers do not collectively or exclusively want to work for free and live a life of pover…

It's pretty disparaging that there are people on HN who feel confident enough to enter into discussions about software licencing —albeit on a throwaway account— but don't understand that software can have more than one license. I'd like to think I do understand all sides of this, but I will admit AGPL does give me pause for thought. It makes sense for standalone projects which don't have to be integrated. But at comp…

> Does make me wonder why there isn't an ALGPL: "Use my network-expressed component as you like, but if you alter its source, you also need to redistribute the changes under the same license"…

I'm fairly sure there's a GPL like that, either the GPLv3 or a version of the AGPL. It definitely doesn't let you alter the source for network servers, though, exactly like you say.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#186

Post by moonchild » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:16 AM UTC

CyberRabbi wrote: post #87

Just a note that he is speaking from the perspective of someone who already profited immensely from the source code in question before the source was released. Most developers of FOSS never see a single dime and actually do it at net negative monetary benefit not to mention personal cost. All of that purely for the benefit of the collective.

The profit does not come from the source code, but from the assets.

There are games which are fully opensource, but where you have to pay for the assets (and where the source code was released at the same time as the rest of the game). This was not the case for doom, but the demo for doom was free and came out at the same time; the engine was always freely available.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#187

Post by mikevm » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:17 AM UTC

What is the point in releasing your code as GPL anyway? If you've solved some interesting problem, then people can read your code to figure it out and then reimplement it, and no one will ever find out.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#188

Post by trasz » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:17 AM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #166

trasz wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to how much PlayStation OS gets upstreamed into Linux? If you don’t want to upstream, you won’t; if you want, you will. GPL doesn’t force anyone to give back, it merely prevents one from using your project if they don’t.

Playstation OS is based on FreeBSD, there is nothing to upstream into Linux. If you want to talk GNU/Linux, then we can switch to Android and ChromeOS, which have indeed done several contributions, in fact many of those left out weren't accepted.

So, as you can see, there's nothing to gain from GPL in this scenario: the choice is between Sony not upstreaming their changes because they don't want to (BSD), or not upstreaming their changes because they couldn't use your code in the first place (GPL).

With Android, Google wanted to give their changes back, so they were able to use GPL-ed code. They would give the changes back without GPL too. You can see that with non-GPL-ed projects they contribute to.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#189

Post by nivenkos » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:17 AM UTC

malka wrote: post #120

> "but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns". Well, that's the point. GPL is working as intented.

I guess his point is that the we haven't seen a big community fork of the code with FOSS games being released, etc.

There's been a handful, but nothing like the flurry of Unity games, etc.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#190

Post by pavlov » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 9:17 AM UTC

PoignardAzur wrote: post #156

I'm very frustrated by some of the answers here and on Twitter. Carmack says: > The GPL virality wound up being a net negative, and more value would have come from BSD. [...] The best aspects of GPL work didn't manifest, but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns. One of the answers on Twitter: > Then what if it's being exploited by big techs and make your work proprietary?…

> “Dismissing empirical evidence by clinging to philosophical assertions?”

Dogmatism usually means this.