Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps. • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#91

Post by koko775 » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 6:31 PM UTC

timwiseman wrote: post #71

btipling wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand a…

"Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. " The only freedom the GPL takes away, or even could take away, is freedom that you never had. Remember, you have no right to view code, modify, or distribute software unless you get that right by either being given it or buying it from the creator. BSD-style software simply gives these things to you as a gift, and is…

Ah, but that's the thing - it is a trade-off. While both the GPL and BSD (and other Free Software licenses) are certainly better than closed-source, the GPL is a promise to the user at the expense of the developer (a reasonable expense, to be sure), whereas the BSD and BSD-like licenses are promises to the developer, perhaps at some expense to the user (i.e. if something uses it it's not guaranteed to be Free Software).

Given that most people are developers, not users, I myself prefer BSD-style licenses. That said, I also think the GPL keeps developers honest and is healthy for the FOSS ecosystem as well.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#92

Post by chc » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 6:43 PM UTC

cosgroveb wrote: post #90

chc wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that any more free than closed-source, proprietary software? You could just as easily say, "Don't like the terms of Photoshop's license? Go write your own then!" And unlike a GPL software vendor, Adobe couldn't turn around and sue you for creating a derivative work (because your brain hasn't been infected by any virally licensed source code). Anyway, the question of freedom between GPL and BSD is this: Does fr…

I didn't say the GPL increased freedom. Only that it doesn't decrease it.

"Increase" and "decrease" are only meaningful in relation to some baseline. The GPL doesn't decrease freedom relative to nothing at all, and only a little bit relative to proprietary software. But relative to the BSD license, you have less freedom with the GPL. I'm using it in the sense that the FSF says proprietary software decreases freedom: It gives the people who receive it less freedom than it otherwise could.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#93

Post by cabalamat » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 6:51 PM UTC

btipling wrote: post #15

SimonPStevens wrote: post #12

They aren't prohibiting "Free Software", they are prohibiting software that is under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to the recipient. Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Micr…

Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand a…

> Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away

The only freedom the GPL takes away is the freedom to take away other people's freedom to use modified versions of the software.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#94

Post by dubious_1 » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 6:57 PM UTC

jonny_eh wrote: post #31

They're only preventing GPLv3 (and its ilk). There's a reason they mention GPLv3 and not GPLv2. GPLv2 just requires the sharing of source code for a given binary. GPLv3 takes it a lot farther and requires that a mechanism also be provided to use derivative works. So if a car manufacturer uses GPLv3 code, they not only have to distribute the source code (which may or not be an issue), they also have to allow people to…

You are the first to actually hit that point, and I believe rightly so. I don't see how you could actually comply with V3 and release your software on any of these stores. The obtaining of a developer signing key is not free, and there is no guarantee that the derived work would actually be accepted.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#95

Post by dagw » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 7:02 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #76

dagw wrote: post #3

Looks like they're trying to preempt the whole "can you distribute GPLed programs via the app store" problem that Apple's been facing.

So it's the same as Apple then. "Can you distribute GPL?" "No."

Where has Apple said "No"? I seem to recall a whole bunch of speculation and uncertainty surrounding Apple not making a clear statement one way or the other.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#96

Post by msg » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 7:06 PM UTC

jedsmith wrote: post #67

timtadh wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue here is you disagree with FSF over the meaning of the word free. Don't worry this is a common occurrence! To RMS free means freedom to use software without violating his "golden rule." RMS believes that if a neighbor wants to use software you are using you should be able to give it to him. Just as you would neighborly share flour or a rake. I am not going to debate RMSs ethical philosophy, I just want to po…

> If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor. So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software. Free is one of the most overloaded words in the English language, and I know that at least some of the Free Software movement agrees due to the prevalence of libre software (as if switching to French somehow makes it more…

You are overloading "free" too.

You exist. You can make choices. You can act. In that sense, you are free, until you're dead. You can do whatever you want with software.

In a more practical sense, if you want to redistribute GPL-licensed software, you aren't free from the restriction of the software's license in a legal sense, because the license is your only legal means to redistribute the software.

When are you ever free to do what you wish with software? Answer, when it's your original work... and you don't violate software patents, even the ones you never heard of... and it's not export controlled or you're not exporting it... and its main purpose is not to induce copyright infringement (we are losing that one in the courts today, sad but true)... and you are not using the software to commit other crimes... AND SO ON.

Get real, there are all kinds of legal restrictions on your ability to "do what you wish" with software, even public domain software. Some of them even make sense.

It might be more accurate to call it "freed" software. The goal of the GPL is to uncage domesticated software and let it roam wild forever, never collared again. The people who distribute software in this fashion won't let you put it back in the zoo.

And again, FSF is not saying that users are free to do what they want. You are not free, according to them. They say that software is free, in the sense of the software freedoms. That sentence essentially would only parse to $0 before Stallman came along.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#97

Post by tspiteri » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 7:10 PM UTC

jedsmith wrote: post #63

cosgroveb wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not responding to the substance of my post. I said I wasn't commenting on whether or not the GPL actually promotes freedom. It just doesn't take it away. You and I are in total agreement here. If you want your code to have the widest possible distribution, use BSD/MIT licenses (I have done this). You have the freedom to do this and the existence of the GPL does not take your freedom away from you. You also hav…

> People have a sense of entitlement WRT open source code, I think. As if it's "open source," it should be under whatever terms they want not those of the original author. I think that's why so many people bitch about copyleft licenses. That certainly isn't why I "bitch," as you say, as I realize that the author can do whatever he wishes. I do, however, make it a point to listen to my users; if my users have a philos…

I do not think the GPL restrictions are aimed at users, but at other developers who may be competitors. Some developers might be cautious about opening their source using BSD-style licenses because their competitors may then use the free code in their closed-source product. So they use the GPL reasoning "If my competitors use my code in their product, I want to be able to use their code in my product."

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#98

Post by mkr-hn » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 7:29 PM UTC

stuhacking wrote: post #61

Does warranty come into this at all? There are terms in a lot of Free Software licenses that remove the obligation to provide support, accept liability for the product or even to guarantee its fitness for purpose. It seems to me that these aspects introduce a gap in the level of support Microsoft can offer for a product distributed on its platform since it doesn't necessarily have a way to delegate responsibility bac…

I think that's standard for both EULAs and free software licenses.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#99

Post by rbanffy » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 7:37 PM UTC

btipling wrote: post #15

SimonPStevens wrote: post #12

They aren't prohibiting "Free Software", they are prohibiting software that is under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to the recipient. Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Micr…

Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand a…

Let me put it in simple words.

GPL is not about freedom for developers. It's about freedom for users. MIT and BSD-like languages don't care about user rights. They don't even care that much about the rights of programmers. All they demand is some form of recognition.

GPL, on the other hand, allows you to build upon the work of others, provided you respect their wishes as to how you should use their work - that you don't disrespect your users and provide them with the same rights you received.

As was pointed out elsewhere, nobody is forcing you to stand on the shoulders of giants. You may as well stand on the ground and reinvent your wheels.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#100

Post by eney » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 7:43 PM UTC

timtadh wrote: post #55

jedsmith wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the same way about the GPL, in that it dictates very strong boundaries about what can and cannot be done with the code you are distributing. I don't personally feel that the tradeoff is acceptable to achieve a goal of preventing corruption, as you say, and it can be argued that the license indeed does prevent many freedoms to do what you will. If I write software and distribute it as open-source on the Interne…

The Free Software movement is a religious movement and the GPL is an expression of their belief system. See my comment above and: http://blog.hackthology.com/interpreting-the-free-software-m...

Nonsense! The Free Software movement is a political movement informed by philosophical and ethical values.