501–509 of 509 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They _literally_ could.
How does one keep software proprietary while leveraging the GPL (aside from the case of not distributing it)?
1. You incorporate GPL software and hope that no one notices and/or no one challenges. This is the most popular approach, and it’s quite successful, actually. 2. You cease to be a proprietary software company. Less popular, but an option.
Both of these are literally possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Intimate communication" here almost certainly refers to shared memory. No one is claiming passing JSON over the wire is the same as linking, or else a GPL webserver could insist that browsers be licensed under the GPL.
> "Intimate communication" here almost certainly refers to shared memory. No, shared memory is addressed later within the same answer. > Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking. The first part of the answer clearly includes programs sending each other "complex data structures", including nested JSON data, over pipes.
> If the main program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins
Which limits a lot the relationship between the original program and the "plug-in" concept. I mean, we literally have binary proprietary blobs used as kernel drivers...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the stance of the 'Open Source' crowd The original stance of the open source crowd was more along the lines of the GPL -> GPLv3 -> AGPL, which expressly prevents this kind of thing. The proliferation of "give everything away for free" MIT/BSD/Apache licenses seems to me to have been an intentional campaign by corporate interests to undermine free software ideals
> The proliferation of "give everything away for free" MIT/BSD/Apache licenses seems to me to have been an intentional campaign by corporate interests to undermine free software ideals As a counterpoint, when I make something open source, I really mean "freedom", which includes the freedom to build a commercial service using the software. I use the MIT license not because of "corporate interests to undermine free sof…
(There's also a secondary motiviation for using the GPL which seems to be driving this kind of discussion, that of 'paying your part', but this is neither open source nor free software in origin IMO: the desired deal is 'I make the source code available, but I want a cut if you're making money from it'. You can often do this with a version of the GPL that is viewed as sufficiently anti-commercial, and then offering a paid proprietary license, but this is antithetical to the goals of those who wrote the GPL)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does one keep software proprietary while leveraging the GPL (aside from the case of not distributing it)?
There are a few avenues. 1. You incorporate GPL software and hope that no one notices and/or no one challenges. This is the most popular approach, and it’s quite successful, actually. 2. You cease to be a proprietary software company. Less popular, but an option. Both of these are literally possible.
Plenty of companies develop both proprietary software and contribute to GPL codebases. It’s not at all the dichotomy you think it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a few avenues. 1. You incorporate GPL software and hope that no one notices and/or no one challenges. This is the most popular approach, and it’s quite successful, actually. 2. You cease to be a proprietary software company. Less popular, but an option. Both of these are literally possible.
1 is a breach of license, 2 is not a solution to the problem, it is avoiding the problem. Plenty of companies develop both proprietary software and contribute to GPL codebases. It’s not at all the dichotomy you think it is.
Plenty of companies also don’t allow their employees to contribute to GPL tools with company resources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your questions seem to be based on unspoken assumptions. Are you under the impression that a restriction can only take the form of a blanket prohibition?
No assumptions here! You said that the AGPL "restricts the use of the software when modified", so I'm just asking specifically what the restrictions are.
HN is for intellectual curiosity. Not gaslighting ideological battles.
Conditions on freedom are restrictions. Something doesn't have to be an outright prohibition to be an impingement on freedom. It's dishonest to pretend like anything short of a prohibition is unrestricted freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No assumptions here! You said that the AGPL "restricts the use of the software when modified", so I'm just asking specifically what the restrictions are.
No... you asked "Like, what specifically are you forbidden from doing?" HN is for intellectual curiosity. Not gaslighting ideological battles. Conditions on freedom are restrictions. Something doesn't have to be an outright prohibition to be an impingement on freedom. It's dishonest to pretend like anything short of a prohibition is unrestricted freedom.
In order to have that discussion, we need a specific example of such a restriction! You've evaded my request for one three times now, so the only conclusion at this point is that you can't come up with one because it just doesn't exist.
If someone doesn't want their code to be grabbed and ran away with it, they shall use (A)GPL.
Then, nobody can add a "secret sauce" and sit on top of your work and act like they have written all of it and make it proprietary.
Moreover, do not do copyright reassignments and with every new contributor, the license becomes more entrenched in your codebase.
We should stop demonizing copyleft licenses and romanticize permissive licenses. Every inconsiderately permissive licensed code butters corporations and is destined to be closed and their developers got exploited.
We should increase license literacy in Free Software.