Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Apr 2012 19:25 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source "A new analysis of licensing data shows that not only is use of the GPL and other copyleft licenses continuing to decline, but the rate of disuse is actually accelerating." This shouldn't be surprising. The GPL is complex, and I honestly don't blame both individuals and companies opting for simpler, more straightforward licenses like BSD or MIT-like licenses.
Order by: Score:
hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sat 21st Apr 2012 19:39 UTC
ParadoxUncreated
Member since:
2009-12-05

The GPL is complex, therefore BSD is better?

Wine used BSD, switched to GPL when some proprietary version was released with proprietary tweaks, and sourcecode was not contributed back.

VHS vs Beta, is one example everyone seems to know.
Windows vs Linux, is another I`d like to cite.
And now supposedly BSD vs GPL.

Why this refusal to go completely opensource, by people who for some reason, think that Microsoft or other company (Be) can do better than worldwide coders?

If you release a project under the BSD, spent 10 years on it, and some dude just incorporates his proprietary thing into it, and makes a lot of money, don`t you feel some kind of injustice? There you are not getting any of that money, and they guy who only had the skill for his proprietary tweaks gets it all. That doesn`t seem like any just division of means, or correct reward for ones work in any way. More like a bully/facist/tyrant if you ask me.

Then again the BSD logo is a satan. I am sure all satans are proud to be abused.

Reply Score: 1

RE: hm?
by MollyC on Sat 21st Apr 2012 20:01 UTC in reply to "hm?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Isn't BSD less complex because folks can use is as they please without worrying about impacting the rest of their code?

When I used to frequent Slashdot years ago, even GPL-proponents argued about what constituted GPL violations and what didn't. For instance, given a piece of GPL code or a GPL library, there were discussions about what methods of using the code would impact the rest of one's code such that one would be forced to release all that code under GPL if one released the finished product. For example, there were dicussions on which of merging code, static linking to libraries, dynamic linking to libs, manually loading of libs, talking to libs via RPC or pipes or COM or whatever, etc would constitute "deriving" from the GPL code and thus requiring all the code to be GPL'ed.

There were arguments wrt GPL vs LGPL.

There were arguments on use of GPL in hardware (would releasing hardware that internally used GPL code be considered releasing a software product that used GPL code and therefore necessitate GPLing all code that the hardware used).

There was talk of using dual-license techniques, where a company releases a product under GPL and releases another version under some other license as a way to honor GPL's ideals while getting around it at the same time.

Then RMS muddied the waters with GPL3 and forbidding using GPL3 code with any code that used DRM or was patent-encumbered or whatever (slashdotters argued about what GPL3 actually did and what it didn't). And Linus rejected GPL3 for Linux, which further complicated matters.

And on and on. And these arguments were between GPL proponents, let alone the GPL detractors.

With BSD, you don't have to worry about any of that crap.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sat 21st Apr 2012 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
ParadoxUncreated Member since:
2009-12-05

If it`s derived from GPL, it must be GPL`d.

If it is alongside GPL, I guess not. But the GPL component must be opensource and provided with the product.

That seems to be the general thinking. For instance GPL plugin/component in a nongpl software, does not require the whole software to be GPLd. That is pure sense, and I think sense is purely the basis for the whole thing, so be sensible.

RMS "muddied the waters"? I think Linus rejected it because most people in the kernel-crowd felt better with V2. Not because it was inferior. Atleast that is the impression I got from some of his statements on it.

If people want to discuss GPL by all means, it is better than being abused by someone who is making money and waiting for you to finish up your code to do it. And then implementing his own tweaks as I said, and not contributing it back to the community. That is worse than slavery, atleast slaves got something, these people get NOTHING.

Your use of the word crap, and "with BSD" as it is some kind of solution, it is no solution.

All we are saying is, we contributed code to you, you contribute code to us. And we work togheter on this, and evolve, and we won`t tolerate abuse in any way.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: hm?
by MollyC on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 04:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I didn't say GPL3 was inferior to GPL2*. But Linus rejecting GPL3 and sticking with GPL2 means there are currently two "blessed" GPL tracks going forward, which complicates matters.

* I didn't say GPL3 was inferior, but now that you bring it up, I do think GPL3 is inferior, because it was designed with RMS's religious goals at the expense of practicality, even more so than GPL2.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: hm?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 07:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

As a point of order, Linus' opinion of GPL V3 is sort of academic or at least only an opinion with no other weight.

The Kernel is licensed under GPL V2 Only. Not GPL V2 or any later version.
He's not the only contributor to the kernel, as such he would need the explicit approval of everyone to ever contribute code that is present in the kernel in order to re-license it as GPL V3. That is simply not practical.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: hm?
by Sodki on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 13:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

The Kernel is licensed under GPL V2 Only. Not GPL V2 or any later version.
He's not the only contributor to the kernel, as such he would need the explicit approval of everyone to ever contribute code that is present in the kernel in order to re-license it as GPL V3. That is simply not practical.


Linux has changed license in the past. It would be very, very hard, but not impossible. For example, Linus previously stated that, if OpenSolaris were to be released under GPLv3, he might consider changing Linux's license to GPLv3. Of course, that didn't happen and it was probably the only change of a license change ever happening.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 13:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hm?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Linux has changed license in the past.


Linux, like all things that grow often are, was smaller in the past.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: hm?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 07:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

If it`s derived from GPL, it must be GPL`d.

If it is alongside GPL, I guess not. But the GPL component must be opensource and provided with the product.

That seems to be the general thinking.


Kind of, but that gets confusing when you start talking about issues like the GPL only flag in the kernel, the class path exemption, or how to do that with scripting languages that are not compiled or linked together.

I do like both GPL and BSD licenses, there are valid use cases for both. GPL for great projects where you want contribution from the community, and BSD for when you do want companies to build off of your code base and deeply integrate it with in their products. The BSD is especially nice when trying to get everyone to use a particular standard for operation ( like say TCP/IP ;) ).

Reply Score: 8

RE[4]: hm?
by dsmogor on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

That's the best justification for existence of both licenses I have read in years! BSD for software that showcases and heralds an information (like a standard that's is meant to be free and shared)., ale but GPL for software that carries the value itself and is meant to be a standard, and a baseline for cooperation, and even if it's somehow forced by its restrictive nature.
Without GPL there simply wouldn't be a vibrant community of hackers around Android handsets that hw manufacturers are obliged to release kernels for.

Reply Score: 4

RE: hm?
by legume42 on Sat 21st Apr 2012 20:20 UTC in reply to "hm?"
legume42 Member since:
2006-08-30

Wine used BSD, switched to GPL when some proprietary version was released with proprietary tweaks, and sourcecode was not contributed back.


So what?

If you release a project under the BSD, spent 10 years on it, and some dude just incorporates his proprietary thing into it, and makes a lot of money, don`t you feel some kind of injustice? There you are not getting any of that money, and they guy who only had the skill for his proprietary tweaks gets it all. That doesn`t seem like any just division of means, or correct reward for ones work in any way. More like a bully/facist/tyrant if you ask me.


No injustice, bullying, fascism, or tyranny. You put code under the a bsd like license to allow basically unrestricted reuse. You do this knowingly and are not forced to do so. Money isn't the only or most important reward.

Then again the BSD logo is a satan. I am sure all satans are proud to be abused.


The BSD mascot is a cartoon daemon. Always has a smile on his face.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: hm?
by tuma324 on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

No injustice, bullying, fascism, or tyranny. You put code under the a bsd like license to allow basically unrestricted reuse. You do this knowingly and are not forced to do so. Money isn't the only or most important reward.


So you get abused knowingly? That's as bad, if not worse, as getting abused unknowingly.

Reply Score: 1

RE: hm?
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 21st Apr 2012 20:26 UTC in reply to "hm?"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

If you release a project under the BSD, spent 10 years on it, and some dude just incorporates his proprietary thing into it, and makes a lot of money, don`t you feel some kind of injustice? There you are not getting any of that money, and they guy who only had the skill for his proprietary tweaks gets it all. That doesn`t seem like any just division of means, or correct reward for ones work in any way. More like a bully/facist/tyrant if you ask me.


Oh-em-gee, you mean people might actually use BSD-licensed code in a way that's specifically allowed by the BSD license? Those bastards!

Only a complete idiot would throw a hissy-fit over someone else using their code in a way that's clearly allowed by the BSD license, after knowingly releasing the code under that license.

Then again the BSD logo is a satan. I am sure all satans are proud to be abused.


Not only that, but Apple's logo is clearly satanic too, representing the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. AND they make use of BSD software, so Apple must be, like, doubly-satanic!

Wait... you were actually being serious, weren't you? Excuse me while I find a clean pair of pants, I seem to have pissed myself due to uncontrollable laughter.

Reply Score: 16

v RE[2]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sat 21st Apr 2012 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
RE[3]: hm?
by bassbeast on Sat 21st Apr 2012 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Its a shame that we don't have a "-1 zealot" here because it is YOU sir that actually tried to compare the Daemon logo of BSD to some sort of evil....because you got all butthurt because you released code under a license you obviously didn't understand.

And it has nothing to do with being "cool" or not, it has to do with RMS simply not listening. You see to him the GPL is like the holy crusades, where compromise is simply not tolerated because everything and everyone other than him and his vision is the bad guy. As the head of Red hat so succinctly put it "RMS treats his friends as his enemies".

So you sir are simply seeing the fruit of that attitude. The GPL went too far with V3, RMS will never change it, so the developers are simply voting with their feet and going elsewhere. So unless you think others should be forced to use the GPL whether they want to or not there is simply nothing you can do or say to change this,because when even Linus and Google won't touch V3 you know its broken.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[4]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
RE[3]: hm?
by BeamishBoy on Sat 21st Apr 2012 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
BeamishBoy Member since:
2010-10-27

It`s like the beos crowd here isn`t it. Where companies are worshipped, and GPL and linux uncool.


It's nothing - nothing - to do with what's cool or uncool. It's to do with people finding that the GPL places restrictions on their code - and on the use of their code by others - that they find to be utterly objectionable.

Honestly, the only people who seem to get excited by this sort of thing are hard-core GNU freetards who believe that everyone who doesn't accept their extreme ideology is evil.

Edited 2012-04-21 23:03 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 01:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Honestly, the only people who seem to get excited by this sort of thing are hard-core GNU freetards who believe that everyone who doesn't accept their extreme ideology is evil.


How is "I expect to be paid back through code when you use my code" extreme or ideological? Sounds pretty pragmatic to me.

Sorry, but "freedom, even if it means freedom to not pay back/forward", IS ideological.

Nothing wrong with ideological. Don't use ideological in a pejorative sense.

Reply Score: 9

RE[5]: hm?
by BeamishBoy on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
BeamishBoy Member since:
2010-10-27

How is "I expect to be paid back through code when you use my code" extreme or ideological?


It's not. Then again, I didn't even remotely suggest that it was.

But of course you knew that already.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: hm?
by lemur2 on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 01:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"It`s like the beos crowd here isn`t it. Where companies are worshipped, and GPL and linux uncool.


It's nothing - nothing - to do with what's cool or uncool. It's to do with people finding that the GPL places restrictions on their code - and on the use of their code by others - that they find to be utterly objectionable.
"

This is a commonly expressed viewpoint, but it is a complete red herring.

The GPL doesn't apply to THEIR code (unless they want it to). The GPL only applies to code someone else wrote and placed under the GPL.

The recipient of GPL code simply doesn't get the luxury to find the restrictions of the GPL objectionable, because it isn't their code to which those restrictions apply.

Edited 2012-04-22 02:00 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: hm?
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 01:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

It`s like the beos crowd here isn`t it. Where companies are worshipped, and GPL and linux uncool. Oh look it`s BSD BEOS. Which is "more together" than linux. LOL. You guys are clueless idiots. Grow up.


Riiiight. Go ahead, make even less sense, I dare you.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: hm?
by Soulbender on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 03:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Oh the irony.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: hm?
by MollyC on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 04:45 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

hehe
I literally LOL'ed at your "tree of knowledge of good and evil" reference. lol

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: hm?
by Savior on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 06:23 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
Savior Member since:
2006-09-02

Not only that, but Apple's logo is clearly satanic too, representing the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


Actually, the Bible does not call the fruit an apple, something it most likely wasn't. Apple Inc. is evil in its own right.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: hm?
by zima on Sat 28th Apr 2012 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

It most likely wasn't anything but a story... (or perhaps the events inspiring it being so different to be almost unrecognizable, likely also a synthesis of many; what fruit it could be is a very minor dilemma)

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:28 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
RE: hm?
by Lazarus on Sat 21st Apr 2012 20:55 UTC in reply to "hm?"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

Please give me the ability to vote -1 funny or +1 sad. Thanks.

Reply Score: 5

RE: hm?
by arsipaani on Sat 21st Apr 2012 21:07 UTC in reply to "hm?"
arsipaani Member since:
2010-06-13


Wine used BSD, switched to GPL when some proprietary version was released with proprietary tweaks, and sourcecode was not contributed back.


You don't need to contribute back in original project when using GPL (as long as program source is available to users).

Reply Score: 6

v RE: hm?
by jigzat on Sat 21st Apr 2012 21:20 UTC in reply to "hm?"
RE[2]: hm?
by BluenoseJake on Sat 21st Apr 2012 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I'm pretty sure giving something away, with no strings attached, could be considered a definition of selfless.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: hm?
by lemur2 on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 01:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm pretty sure giving something away, with no strings attached, could be considered a definition of selfless.


I'm pretty sure that taking something, giving nothing back for it, yet still charging downstream recipients for essentially that same thing re-packaged, could be considered the definition of selfish.

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: hm?
by galvanash on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 05:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

I'm pretty sure giving something away, with no strings attached, could be considered a definition of selfless.


I'm pretty sure that taking something, giving nothing back for it, yet still charging downstream recipients for essentially that same thing re-packaged, could be considered the definition of selfish.


That's it, in a nutshell, right there... The BSD license is for the unselfish. The GPL license is for forcing other people to be unselfish.

I have nothing against the GPL, I'm just saying maybe all the loudmouth GPL proponents that talk about how it is "better" should consider that some people simply don't feel the need to police other people's behavior - they just want to write code and share it with whoever is interested...

Edited 2012-04-22 05:49 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

That's it, in a nutshell, right there... The BSD license is for the unselfish. The GPL license is for forcing other people to be unselfish.


That is stupid. GPL doesn't force people to be unselfish because the only people affected by GPL are those who use GPL code. The GPL license doesn't claim ownership of open source code by default.

If you like being selfish, choose BSD, or pay for off-the-shelf middleware, where you don't have to reciprocate the sharing. The GPL is for those who want to share their code but with protection from people/companies who just leech from their efforts.

Reply Score: 7

RE[6]: hm?
by galvanash on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hm?"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

That is stupid. GPL doesn't force people to be unselfish because the only people affected by GPL are those who use GPL code. The GPL license doesn't claim ownership of open source code by default.


No, it isn't stupid - at all. You just don't like the way it sounds even though it is completely true.

If you choose to use the GPL license you are forcing a specific behavior in those who use your code. That is in fact the entire point... I never said you were forcing ALL people, obviously it only applies to those who want to use your code.

But in order to use GPL code a user has no choice - act unselfishly (as the license dictates) or go away.

I'm sure your next argument is that the user chooses to use the code, therefore they are not forced. That is completely true. It is also true, however, that the author chooses the license, and that this choice is what ultimately forces the user to have to make their choice in the first place....

Hence the BSD license is for unselfish people. The GPL license is for forcing other people to be unselfish.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: hm?
by Valhalla on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: hm?"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

But in order to use GPL code a user has no choice - act unselfishly (as the license dictates) or go away.

That is a choice, do you know what a choice is?

Hence the BSD license is for unselfish people. The GPL license is for forcing other people to be unselfish.

Wait, so the BSD licence is for unselfish people since it allows people to be selfish, while GPL is for selfish people because it forces people to be unselfish.

????

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: hm?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"That is stupid. GPL doesn't force people to be unselfish because the only people affected by GPL are those who use GPL code. The GPL license doesn't claim ownership of open source code by default.


No, it isn't stupid - at all. You just don't like the way it sounds even though it is completely true.

If you choose to use the GPL license you are forcing a specific behavior in those who use your code. That is in fact the entire point... I never said you were forcing ALL people, obviously it only applies to those who want to use your code.
"


No, it is stupid, because the "force" only happens if the person CHOOSES to use my code in the first place. They're not forced to choose to use my code.

If you don't use my code, you're not forced.

If you choose to use my code, YOU are the one willingly entering the partnership.

You argue about GPL zealots, but you're the one using a really stupid idea of what force is.

The "forcing" is only conditional on whether or not you use my code. If you're not forced to use my code, you are not forced to give back.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: hm?
by Beta on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 07:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

The BSD license is for the unselfish.

Not solely, selfless contributors, and either or users.

The GPL license is for forcing other people to be unselfish.

The GPL doesn’t force anyone to be selfless if they wish to be selfish ‐ you have the ability to choose to use code under it or not.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: hm?
by lucas_maximus on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 09:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

If you give something away do you have the right to stipulate what a person does with it?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: hm?
by Neolander on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 10:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

If you give something away do you have the right to stipulate what a person does with it?

As others said, perhaps the GPL's restrictions on redistribution are precisely the retribution that the software's author is asking for.

If you make software for a living, you need money, but there are other motivations for writing software.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: hm?
by lucas_maximus on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hm?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Sorry I think you missed my point.

Lemur2 was saying that if you give something away and someone never gives anything back that they are selfish.

My counter argument is "Should you be allowed to stipulate this?"

I was merely commenting on the fact that he thinks because he has given something away, he feels he is owed something back.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: hm?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Lemur2 was saying that if you give something away and someone never gives anything back that they are selfish.

My counter argument is "Should you be allowed to stipulate this?"


Should you NOT be allowed to stipulate this? No one said open source was about "giving something away". GPL is not a charity. Never intended as such. If people open their code, why can't they stipulate the conditions that the code can be used? If people choose not to stipulate, they can. If people choose to stipulate, they can also.

Put the shoe on the other foot: what gives people the right to demand that people give away their code without conditions? Why should I, for example, be forced to open up my code with BSD licensing? Why can't I choose to open up my code with GPL? v3 even.

So yes, you should be allowed to stipulate the conditions your code should be used. People just have to suck up their sense of entitlement.*

* And no, GPL isn't a "sense of entitlement", because GPL doesn't require reciprocation from projects that don't use GPLed code.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: hm?
by Neolander on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: hm?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I agree with that. I was just pointing out that releasing code under the GPL was not giving it away, but rather providing it for an unusual price.

For people who truly want to give code away in a charity-like fashion, there is stuff like the Creative Commons CC0 license, which nicely deals with the problem of public domain licensing in countries where the notion doesn't exist.

Edited 2012-04-22 12:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: hm?
by Valhalla on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

If you give something away do you have the right to stipulate what a person does with it?

They are not giving something away, they licence it for people to use and the licence stipulates the conditions for that use. If you want to give something away then use public domain.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: hm?
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 02:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If you give something away do you have the right to stipulate what a person does with it?


You certainly do have a right to make something and let other people use it only in certain ways without any cost.

You are getting confused thinking that the GPL license is "giving copyrights away". It isn't. The GPL license is a conditional grant of some permissions related to the covered source code, that is all that it is.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: hm?
by lucas_maximus on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 09:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I'm pretty sure that taking something, giving nothing back for it, yet still charging downstream recipients for essentially that same thing re-packaged, could be considered the definition of selfish.


The same thing happens to any BSD code that is forked and GPLd, any modifications to the fork are under the GPL and can't be backported to the original BSD code.

I would say that was selfish as well, using the your same logic.

Edited 2012-04-22 09:24 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"I'm pretty sure that taking something, giving nothing back for it, yet still charging downstream recipients for essentially that same thing re-packaged, could be considered the definition of selfish.


The same thing happens to any BSD code that is forked and GPLd, any modifications to the fork are under the GPL and can't be backported to the original BSD code.

I would say that was selfish as well, using the your same logic.
"

As a person who tends towards GPL for pragmatic purposes, I say your scenario does illustrate selfishness. There is no denying it. It's taking advantage of an unequal situation.

But that is the risk you run of licensing your code using BSD. If you don't like it, license your code under some other license. That's why people like me would choose the GPL. I don't like being taken advantage of, even though I like having opened code.

Altruism only works if it is reciprocated.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: hm?
by lucas_maximus on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hm?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

However what Lemur2 alluded to that he still thinks that if someone repackages it and makes money even though the original author released the code knowing full well that may happen.

I just reflected the situation back at him saying that forked code can have the same fate.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: hm?
by BluenoseJake on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 23:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I agree, all I said was that giving your code away for free, for anybody to use in anyway they want, is selfless.

I didn't say, mean or intend any other statement

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: hm?
by lemur2 on Tue 24th Apr 2012 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I agree, all I said was that giving your code away for free, for anybody to use in anyway they want, is selfless.

I didn't say, mean or intend any other statement


Nor did I.

Your statement and mine do not contradict one another.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: hm?
by Kivada on Tue 24th Apr 2012 07:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Your selfless act assumes a world of idealists free of tyrants, you mean well but the gorilla in the room is going to take all it can find and proclaim to the world that Open Source of any type is evil and should never be trusted, the sheep follow the one that shouts the loudest.

The GPL on the other hand at least acts as a referee, ensuring that the greedy beast has to play by the same rules as everyone else.

I'm honestly wondering if this has any correlation to those that back Libertarianism, since it all sounds good on face value as the BSD license does, but Libertarianism has this nasty meeting with a little thing called Human Nature and you end up with Somalia.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: hm?
by Kivada on Sat 21st Apr 2012 23:48 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

No,the GPL is share and share alike, BSD is more akin to a Buddhist that seeks his own personal enlightenment when those around him suffer.

Sure the BSD license seems like a nice gesture, but all it does is ensure that the megacorps can continue to have complete control over the entire industry, while the GPL creates a level playing field for everyone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: hm?
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 02:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Sure the BSD license seems like a nice gesture, but all it does is ensure that the megacorps can continue to have complete control over the entire industry, while the GPL creates a level playing field for everyone.


Imagine you're a software development company and you decide you want to do a little "Freewashing"; in other words, make a few meaningless gestures to give the appearance that you support "Free(tm)" software without going all-in, or maybe to lure in some suckers to do free development work for you. So you decide to release a "community edition" of your existing commercial software, what license are you gonna choose, BSD? HELL no! That would let your competitors take the code and do whatever they want with it. Instead, you're probably going to release the software under GPL3.

That lets you (for example) release a "Free(tm)" version of a web application & plaster it with your branding and copyright notices. Then you can do things that would be considered dickish even with commercial licenses, like use the "legal notices" clause so that if anyone removes your branding, you can then threaten to go after them for GPL infringement (*cough-cough* http://www.cynapse.com/resources/cynin-gpl-v3-open-source-license *cough-cough*). But because you've released your software as GPL, you can still play the good guy and justify your actions as "protecting Freedom(tm)" or some other noble-sounding BS.

So despite your "BSD lets megacorps control the entire industry" hand-wringing, the reality is that GPL3 is much more "megacorp"-friendly than the BSD license.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: hm?
by Kivada on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Everything you are alluding to is covered under the ability fork the project, it's why Debian rolls IceWeasel instead of Firefox, they removed the Mozilla branding they had to fork the project, they can no longer call it Firefox even if it's the same code under the hood. Now though any changes made to Ice Weasel can also be brought back into Firefox.

Heres another analogy, the GPL is like the take a penny leave a penny tray at a convenience store, the BSD license though is letting someone go in and dump the tray in their pocket and walk out without ever having purchased anything at the store.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: hm?
by cade on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 02:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
cade Member since:
2009-02-28

In many cases, where applicable, a lot of people suffer because they choose not to enlighten themselves.

If the GPL creates a level playing field then why is it that the number of Windows desktops thrashes the number of Linux/etc. desktops in the world. Megacorps like Microsoft get by since many consumers refuse or don't realise that they can enlighten themselves in regards to alternative solutions (OS, programs, etc). It's like when layman people invest in Microsoft Office and then I mention the merits of apps like OpenOffice (especially the nil cost) and then they wakeup. Complete control occurs when the "sheep" decide they want to be controlled, decide not to make a stand towards personal enlightenment.

There are people who code for the love of coding and the love of the coded project and have no problems with sharing their efforts through a BSD licence.

While the code may benefit some "evil" mega-corps, the code also has the potential to benefit many other entities be it the student, academician, professional, consultant, etc. within a no-strings-attached context.


This is not the 1980's/1990's where Microsoft had free reign. Who would have thought that Microsoft would contribute to the Linux space. I remember reading Microsoft's marketing material against Linux in the late 1990's, they were scared of Linux back then. Consider the Google/Apple app stores and the rise of standards like OpenGL, etc.

With society-based enlightenment comes a more level playing field.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: hm?
by Kivada on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 20:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Microsoft's contributions where a red herring and Thom knew it. Every single line of their contributions where to support virtualization of Windows on Linux hosts, just so they could keep selling Windows to managers that know nothing else even exists.

As to Microsoft's ubiquity, you really should look into the history, they did things the mafia wishes they would have thought of to get their position.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: hm?
by cade on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 23:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
cade Member since:
2009-02-28

Yes, I am well aware how Microsoft plays the game. I am an OpenGL coder, amongst other things, and I remember when Microsoft purposely crippled their own OpenGL implementation so they could redirect people to their recently acquired Direct3D as an alternative. It took SGI and John Carmack (from Id software, makers of Wolfensteiin, Quake, Doom, etc.) to show OpenGL was fine on Windows platform.

Sadly, too many people have an over-reliance on the Windows platform because of the "drone" mentality, they think "everybody" uses it and so they must use it. This probably comes from the stance that the computer is just a "boring white box" and so they blindly accept the status quo. OTOH, there are the more creative/brave/logical people who realise that the Windows platform is not the be-all-end-all and embrace other platforms because of what they offer (e.g. MacOSX, Linux, OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana, OpenBSD ...).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: hm?
by jptros on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 02:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
jptros Member since:
2005-08-26

Yes, of course! Microsoft is making Windows work better on Linux for the IT managers that aren't aware that Linux exists! Got it! Hold on while I grab another beer and some popcorn, this thread just keeps getting better and better.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
RE[4]: hm?
by henderson101 on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 18:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

I can clearly see that this used to be BeNews.
The same attitudes where in #beos on efnet aswell.
Where Linux was open sores etc.


Eh? This, mening this site? No, factually incorrect. BeNews was a completely different site that ran in parallel with this one for years. The only common threads that Eugenia was once managing editor of both sites (but at different times.)

BeOS wasn't open source either. You are a complete moron. All of the code for BeOS was closed, save Tracker (opened late in the day) and some of the stuff to to with Binder (from BeIA) that Palm opened.

Wherever you say BeOS, replace it with "haiku" and you ate closer to reality.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[5]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
RE[6]: hm?
by henderson101 on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hm?"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Oh gee how much more accurate you were.


Like, 100% more than you? Eugenia no longer manages this site, David never had anything to do with BeNews and Thom joined this site as a contributor way, way after BeNews was a distant memory. So - yes, way more accurate.

If the editors now are from BeNews


They are not. Save for one who contributes 1 story every 3 - 6 months. So, I stand by calling you a moron.

you actually have the old BeOS mindset here.


What does that even mean? There's no such thing as a "BeOS" mindset. I can guarantee you that many readers and contributors to this site have never run BeOS.

And making a point with BSD Beos


There is no "BSD BeOS". BeOS was completely proprietary. Even when Be Inc released Tracker as open source, they used a license called the "Open Tracker license" not BSD. I really don't get what the point is here. The more interesting part is that there was GPL code in BeOS and Be Inc provided the source to that GPL. So, um, yeah "BSD", obviously. If you can't even be factually correct on the most basic level then you pretty much prove why you are being moderated down by everyone.

[BSD BeOS] not being Haiku, is just more retardation. Infact you don`t have to look back much, here, to see that recently "Haiku was going to change the world".


Linux was going to conquer the desktop. Shit happens dude.

As an ossite, I could mention that Haiku once had a point over Linux, in it`s design, in that it was not dependent on unix structures, so it could optimize the signal-path somewhat. In practise though, Haiku is snailing along, and is not in anyway better than Linux, has a retarded licence, and only having one windowmanager does not make it more tightly intergrated.


You really don't understand what you are talking about. Firstly, look at BlueEyedOS, Cosmoe and that one that Piere Luigi whatever his name was doing. All three were GPL, all three gone. So what if Haiku is slow. What harm is it doing to you personally?

What baffles me is that so many idiots are on an OPERATING SYSTEM site. Who knew it could gather such an ignorant following. Don`t you have some football to play or something?


Your incomprehensible passive/aggressive diatribes are not idiotic then? Wow, talk about pot calling the kettle black... seriously.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: hm?
by bassbeast on Sat 21st Apr 2012 22:44 UTC in reply to "hm?"
RE[2]: hm?
by Kivada on Sat 21st Apr 2012 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

True, but most corporate interests are not in the interest of the greater good, they only want to run a forced obsolesce scam on the general public to keep you paying for the same software they themselves may not have written.

I say most because at least companies like AMD that provide the specs for OSS drivers allow for the public to keep their hardware working for long after the company has stopped supporting it, which is the way it should be.

You're still more then welcome to keep throwing money at companies that contribute little to nothing though.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: hm?
by Valhalla on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:14 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

the problem with GPL is V3 which is as anti-business as RMS could possibly make it.

Please point out how GPLv3 is extremely 'anti-business' as opposed to GPLv2? The major changes to GPLv3 was that it strenghtened the patent protection and prevented tivo-ization, the latter is the one which Linus strongly objected too and the one thing which could be concieved as anti-business, however that only apply to tivo-style business (not allowing the end user to run their own versions of software on a system).

Both these major changes were perfectly in line with what GPL stands for, which is the right to recieve, modify and run the modified code.


But RMS is gonna find out that its businesses paying for FOSS and when they won't touch it with a 50 foot pole?

GCC is GPLv3 licenced and has tons of corporate support, IBM, Red Hat, Google, etc are employing programmers to work fulltime on GCC, and corporations like Intel, AMD, continously contribute code.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"the problem with GPL is V3 which is as anti-business as RMS could possibly make it.

Please point out how GPLv3 is extremely 'anti-business' as opposed to GPLv2? The major changes to GPLv3 was that it strenghtened the patent protection and prevented tivo-ization, the latter is the one which Linus strongly objected too and the one thing which could be concieved as anti-business, however that only apply to tivo-style business (not allowing the end user to run their own versions of software on a system).
"

You illustrate an important point. To a business person, any competition is anti-business, because to a business person, the only business that matters is their business. If something hurts their competitors but not them, they'll say it's fine, while their competitor will say it's anti-business.

Business and financial people are sharks, the lot of them. Trust them only as far as they trust you.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
RE[3]: hm?
by Soulbender on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I do however believe that my attempts at rational dialogue, and exchange of facts, leading to reasonable logical conclusions, are failing most of the time at osnews.


You, sir, is an absolute riot.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
ParadoxUncreated Member since:
2009-12-05

You, sir blah blah riot?

I do indeed doubt very much that talking to you about politics and economic structures would yield anything positive.

Go back to #idiotspretendingtobecool or something.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: hm?
by galvanash on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

So I have to ask... Do you troll professionally, or is this just a hobby?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 23:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hm?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

So I have to ask... Do you troll professionally, or is this just a hobby?


I know you weren't talking to me, but:

I have an allergic reaction to stupid people who think market cap is real value, or people who think people willingly entering a contract is "forced" to abide by the rules of the contract.

Edited 2012-04-22 23:30 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: hm?
by galvanash on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 23:48 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: hm?"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

I know you weren't talking to me, but:

I have an allergic reaction to stupid people who think market cap is real value, or people who think people willingly entering a contract is "forced" to abide by the rules of the contract.


Ahhh. Now I remember you.

Fair enough - my "allergic reaction" comment back then was over the top and I apologize. Touché.

Reply Score: 2

RE: hm?
by Soulbender on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 02:22 UTC in reply to "hm?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The GPL is complex, therefore BSD is better?


Simpler is often better.

VHS vs Beta, is one example everyone seems to know.
Windows vs Linux, is another I`d like to cite.


This really has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Why this refusal to go completely opensource


Some say that the BSD/MIT license is more open than the GPL. Who does so many GPL project refuse to go completely open?

If you release a project under the BSD, spent 10 years on it, and some dude just incorporates his proprietary thing into it, and makes a lot of money, don`t you feel some kind of injustice? There you are not getting any of that money, and they guy who only had the skill for his proprietary tweaks gets it all.


You do know that the GPL does not prevent this from happening either, right?

Then again the BSD logo is a satan. I am sure all satans are proud to be abused.


a) "the BSD logo" is not satan. b) are you trying to be funny?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: hm?
by JAlexoid on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 12:34 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Simpler is often better.

When it comes to legally binding agreements, then it's mostly not the case.

Reply Score: 2

RE: hm?
by galvanash on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 05:33 UTC in reply to "hm?"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Why this refusal to go completely opensource, by people who for some reason, think that Microsoft or other company (Be) can do better than worldwide coders?


The BSD license is completely open source - it is pretty close the the epitome of the concept. The GPL, while having it's uses, is far less "open" if being open is your main goal. I'm not saying that the GPL is bad - but it is most definitely more constraining.

If you release a project under the BSD, spent 10 years on it, and some dude just incorporates his proprietary thing into it, and makes a lot of money, don`t you feel some kind of injustice?


Um... No. Why would I?

To clarify, if I released a project under the BSD license that means I am fully aware of that being a possibility. If limiting the ability for others to profit from my work was my goal I would choose another license (like the GPL) or maybe just keep it to myself. The point is not everyone has the same priorities...

There you are not getting any of that money, and they guy who only had the skill for his proprietary tweaks gets it all.


Who cares? You think most people starting BSD projects are in it for the money???

That doesn`t seem like any just division of means, or correct reward for ones work in any way.


If seems to me that thoughts concerning correct reward for ones work don't enter into it for most BSD folks - they aren't doing it for the payday.

Then again the BSD logo is a satan. I am sure all satans are proud to be abused.


One man's abuse is another man's reward... Not everyone is motivated by greed, for some people just having their work flourish is enough for them. Why hate on the unselfish?

Edited 2012-04-22 05:34 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: hm?
by tuma324 on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

The BSD license is completely open source - it is pretty close the the epitome of the concept. The GPL, while having it's uses, is far less "open" if being open is your main goal. I'm not saying that the GPL is bad - but it is most definitely more constraining.


You mean *its* NOT *it's*.

And I disagree with your definition of the GPL.

The GPL ensures freedom for users and developers, meaning that the code will always remain free. BSD doesn't ensure anything of this.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: hm?
by Soulbender on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 04:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The GPL ensures freedom for users and developers, meaning that the code will always remain free. BSD doesn't ensure anything of this.


You really don't know how this works. Code released under either license will always remain "free". You can't take code relased under the BSD license and magically make it closed and the same goes for the GPL.
The difference is in what restrictions are placed on derivative work and re-distribution. The GPL places more restrictions on this than the BSD license and some people like this and some do not.

Reply Score: 2

RE: hm?
by lucas_maximus on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 08:31 UTC in reply to "hm?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Wine used BSD, switched to GPL when some proprietary version was released with proprietary tweaks, and sourcecode was not contributed back.


And, that is perfectly fine under the license agreement.

If they didn't want this happening, maybe they should have considered more carefully what license to choose.

Reply Score: 2

RE: hm?
by silix on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 13:37 UTC in reply to "hm?"
silix Member since:
2006-03-01

If you release a project under the BSD, spent 10 years on it, and some dude just incorporates his proprietary thing into it, and makes a lot of money, don`t you feel some kind of injustice?

no, because if i release some project under the BSD, that means that either:
- i don't care about monetary compensation (or my developing work has already been implicitly rewarded -see later), and/or
- i beg for my code to become a reference implementation ready for everyone else to reuse in both free and commercial sw products

reuse of (good) code is one thing a pragmatic developer always strives to do, since it minimizes duplicated (thus likely wasted) wheel reinvention efforts (thus entropy) and ideally results in a single (for a given function and design approach) more robust codebase, rather than separate ones each with its own idiosynchrasies and bugs

There you are not getting any of that money,

but the point is, if you educate yourself about the meaning of the BSD acronym, you'll understand the motive behind a permissive license...
the licensed item is software produced (or at least relicensed) by a university, i.e. a product of academic research, but with academic research everyone (both private and commercial parties) is entitled to exploit research products at will...
one may say that companies are even more so since afaik they're prime sponsors of privately funded universities - from a certain point of view, they got all the right to use bsd code since they've already paid for it (because academic researchers dont work for free, those developing original BSD/MIT code were paid for their work)

Edited 2012-04-22 13:40 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: hm?
by Kivada on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

The key word there is exploit, companies shouldn't be allowed to exploit ANY academic research, it's why health care is so expensive and ruled by the drug companies pushing the pill of the week.

They are allowed to take all the academic research they like, tweak it my 1 atom, patent it, sell it at incredibly high prices, when the patent is going to expire, re-tweak it and re-patent it and kill the old product line.

Reply Score: 3

RE: hm?
by renox on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 17:46 UTC in reply to "hm?"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

The GPL is complex, therefore BSD is better?
Well that's definitedly an argument for the BSD licence, the GPLv2 wasn't too complex, but the GPLv3 is unreadable.

Wine used BSD, switched to GPL when some proprietary version was released with proprietary tweaks, and sourcecode was not contributed back.
That's only *one* datapoint, PostgreSQL is BSD, has proprietary forks and is still a project with lots of momentum.

The GPL vs BSD debate is very old, I don't think it's a very interesting debate.

Reply Score: 3

RE: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 22:38 UTC in reply to "hm?"
ParadoxUncreated Member since:
2009-12-05

I am just gonna have to say it. Extraordinarily retarded responses to this text. People are fantasising, not living in the real world.

I`m starting to think that being moderated down on osnews is a sign of intelligence.

And I will be looking for other sites, the amount of gayming news here also, really should have had me doing that a long time ago.

Reply Score: 0

Pragmatic vs theoretical
by thesunnyk on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 01:31 UTC in reply to "hm?"
thesunnyk Member since:
2010-05-21

I feel for you, but ultimately understand why the GPL is seeing less use. I remember reading an article on OSNews titled something like "RMS was right all along". I think people are starting to recognise that the theoretical ethics that RMS is talking about are sound, but we can't follow the same path as it pretty much involves separating ourselves from technology -- the dude uses a Longsoon.

It's almost like he's a shaolin monk but most people see him getting kicked in the nads and instinctually say "err no thanks".

The fact is that a lot of open source code is written in a for-profit context nowadays. They'll use OSS as a "base" and stick a proprietary icing on top. The problem here is that since the GPL is "viral", they don't want it to "infect" the proprietary code, thus forcing them to release it (I believe this has happened with the Linksys WRT router). The move to use BSD is often a practical one to keep lawyers from looking into their code.

People in "pure" open source are aware that in order for their project to gain traction, the GPL is a major drawback -- LLVM is powering along while GCC languishes.

Ultimately, I think everyone recognises that a world with more GPL code is probably better for all of us, but we need an approach from the GNU guys that caters for the practical problems that a lot of people end up in. The zeitgeist needs to change a little at a time. Like Mozilla supporting H.264, it isn't necessarily the right way, but it may be the only way.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Pragmatic vs theoretical
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 02:36 UTC in reply to "Pragmatic vs theoretical"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

They'll use OSS as a "base" and stick a proprietary icing on top. The problem here is that since the GPL is "viral", they don't want it to "infect" the proprietary code, thus forcing them to release it (I believe this has happened with the Linksys WRT router).


The GPL is not "viral", it applies ONLY to a package of code released by the author of that code under the GPL.

If the GPL was truly "viral", then it would not be possible at all to write any proprietary package for Linux.

But here is an example of a commercial package for Linux:
http://www.bricsys.com/en_INTL/bricscad/comparison.jsp

The problem with the Linksys router was that it wasn't proprietary software that Linksys were using in their routers, it was Linux and Busybox, which are both packages which were released by their authors under the GPL.

Linksys hired a firm to write code for their router products. That firm did NOT write proprietary code, they just took Linux and Busybox and tried to re-distribute it as proprietary.

So under the terms of the GPL, Linksys had to provide source code. The thing is ... it was just source code for Linux and Busybox anyway, as it was used on the Linksys routers. So how did that hurt Linksys in any way?

As a consequence of making that source code available, all kinds of "homebrew" firmware became available for these Linksys routers (which Linksys did not have to write), and the routers became insanely popular.

https://openwrt.org/
http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato_%28firmware%29

It wasn't only the router, it was a lot of proucts, including NAS devices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSLU2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unslung

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#The_GPL_in_...
On 11 December 2008, the Free Software Foundation sued Cisco Systems, Inc. for copyright violations by its Linksys division, of the FSF's GPL-licensed coreutils, readline, Parted, Wget, GNU Compiler Collection, binutils, and GNU Debugger software packages, which Linksys distributes in the Linux firmware[61] of its WRT54G wireless routers, as well as numerous other devices including DSL and Cable modems, Network Attached Storage devices, Voice-Over-IP gateways, Virtual Private Network devices and a home theater/media player device.

After six years of repeated complaints to Cisco by the FSF, claims by Cisco that they would correct, or were correcting, their compliance problems (not providing complete copies of all source code and their modifications), of repeated new violations being discovered and reported with more products, and lack of action by Linksys (a process described on the FSF blog as a "five-years-running game of Whack-a-Mole") the FSF took them to court.

Cisco settled the case six months later by agreeing "to appoint a Free Software Director for Linksys" to ensure compliance, "to notify previous recipients of Linksys products containing FSF programs of their rights under the GPL," to make source code of FSF programs freely available on its website, and to make a monetary contribution to the FSF."


Linksys sold many, many times more of these WRT routers than they would have if the router had been just another closed, proprietary product.

So, once again, where is the harm to Linksys? There is only upside and increased sales to Linksys ... all coming from having to release the source code of their router, which wasn't even their code to begin with.

Edited 2012-04-23 02:55 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Pragmatic vs theoretical
by pfgbsd on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 02:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Pragmatic vs theoretical"
pfgbsd Member since:
2011-03-12

"They'll use OSS as a "base" and stick a proprietary icing on top. The problem here is that since the GPL is "viral", they don't want it to "infect" the proprietary code, thus forcing them to release it (I believe this has happened with the Linksys WRT router).


The GPL is not "viral", it applies ONLY to a package of code released by the author of that code under the GPL.
"

That's MPL. Anything you link with GPL'd software becomes contaminated and is also GPLd. That's one of the reasons why MacOSX doesnt carry GNU readline.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Pragmatic vs theoretical
by kwan_e on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 02:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pragmatic vs theoretical"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"[q]They'll use OSS as a "base" and stick a proprietary icing on top. The problem here is that since the GPL is "viral", they don't want it to "infect" the proprietary code, thus forcing them to release it (I believe this has happened with the Linksys WRT router).


The GPL is not "viral", it applies ONLY to a package of code released by the author of that code under the GPL.
"

That's MPL. Anything you link with GPL'd software becomes contaminated and is also GPLd. That's one of the reasons why MacOSX doesnt carry GNU readline. [/q]

Except with GPL, you can remove the link and you're no longer infringing. A proper virus doesn't get removed that cleanly.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Pragmatic vs theoretical
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 03:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Pragmatic vs theoretical"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"[q][q]They'll use OSS as a "base" and stick a proprietary icing on top. The problem here is that since the GPL is "viral", they don't want it to "infect" the proprietary code, thus forcing them to release it (I believe this has happened with the Linksys WRT router).


The GPL is not "viral", it applies ONLY to a package of code released by the author of that code under the GPL.
"

That's MPL. Anything you link with GPL'd software becomes contaminated and is also GPLd. That's one of the reasons why MacOSX doesnt carry GNU readline. [/q]

Except with GPL, you can remove the link and you're no longer infringing. A proper virus doesn't get removed that cleanly. [/q]

The actual truth here is somewhat different, and it is to be found in the text of copyright law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derived_work
In United States copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work).

So, if you write code, it is YOUR code, and you can do with it what you wish, license it however you may.

If however you make a product using someone else's code, you need their permission. If the original author released that code under the GPL, therein is the required permission granted to you, with some conditions attached. You need to re-distribute the source code along with your product. Since it wasn't your code anyway, this shouldn't be a problem in any way.

If you write some code of your own, but to make a whole product you include someone else's code, then you do not actually own the whole product. You have created what is known under copyright law as a "derived work". This happens only when you have included someone else's copyrighted prior work as a major element of your product.

The ownership of the derived work is split between the authors, in proportion to their contributions. If you include only a tiny amount of other people's code, then that is not a "major element" under copyright law, and you can get away with doing that.

But if you do include as a major element of someone else's work in your proprietary product, then you need their permission in order to sell your product, as it isn't entirely yours, it is a derived work of more than one party. The GPL license does NOT cover this, so you ave no permission to go ahead and sell your derived work.

You must get permission, it is a requirement under copyright law. You must get that permission from the copyright holders (in many cases, this is the original authors). It must be a separate arrangement other than the GPL. In other words, you can only do this OUTSIDE of the GPL.

A lot of software is actually made available under multiple licenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_license
"Multi-licensing is the practice of distributing software under two or more different sets of terms and conditions. This may mean multiple different licenses or sets of licenses. Prefixes may be used to indicate the number of licenses used, e.g. dual-licensed for software licensed under two different licenses.

When software is multi-licensed, recipients can choose which terms under which they want to use or distribute the software. The distributor may or may not apply a fee to either option."


MySQL is an example. Other examples include Oracle's NetBeans IDE, Asterisk, Oracle Corporation's Berkeley DB, Modelio, ZeroC's Ice, Magnolia CMS and Qt Software's Qt development toolkit. If you want to make a proprietary product which uses MySQL within it, go ahead, but you will need to buy a commercial license for it.

Derived works are OUTSIDE of the GPL. The GPL doesn't permit them. If you want to use code in a commercial product, you need to get a commercial license from the copyright holder.

We have now gone outside of the GPL. We aren't talking about the GPL any more.

So the GPL is not viral.

Edited 2012-04-23 03:27 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Pragmatic vs theoretical
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 04:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pragmatic vs theoretical"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"The GPL is not "viral", it applies ONLY to a package of code released by the author of that code under the GPL.


That's MPL. Anything you link with GPL'd software becomes contaminated and is also GPLd.
"

Not true. If you write your own code, it is your code. If you make a product using someone else's code, it is still their code, and you need to get their permission.

If you write some code, and you link with GPL'd software, then you have created what is known as a derived work under copyright law. You don't then wholly own the resulting work, it becomes jointly owned by you and by whomever holds the copyright to the works which you linked in. This is an act YOU did, in no way were you forced to do that.

OK, so if you did that, you now have the following options:

(1) Release the whole of the derived work, both your code and the GPL'd code which you linked in, under the GPL. That is fine according to the permissions of the GPL.

(2) Get a separate commercial license to use the code which you linked in from the copyright holders. They may, or may not charge you for that commercial license at their discretion. Once you have such a sepearte commercial license for the "parts" which you used to make your product, you are now all set to be able to sell your product commercially.

Either way, you are not "forced" to do one thing or the other. If you decide to release the derived work (including some of your code) under the GPL, then that is your decision. If you decide to make your product commercial, and you get a commercial license from the authors of the work you linked in, then the resulting derived work is commercial, not GPL.

The GPL is therefore not viral.

Edited 2012-04-23 04:01 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Pragmatic vs theoretical
by zima on Sat 28th Apr 2012 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Pragmatic vs theoretical"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

The GPL is not "viral", it applies ONLY to a package of code released by the author of that code under the GPL.

There is at least one scenario where this term (even if needlessly loaded) can be applied to GPL. Not the example parent gave, but very much in context of BSD & GPL.

An active effort insisting on using GPL, while importing large chunks of BSD licensed code, can in practice (not in the ~legal sense) sort of contaminate BSD codebase from which it started, steal the spotlight from it, so the BSD version might even start to languish and after a while it's as good as dead. Certainly it brings needless duplication of effort.

Or at least BSD (operating systems) devs grumble about such dynamics re their code and Linux, from time to time.

Edited 2012-04-28 23:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: hm?
by Ford Prefect on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 10:36 UTC in reply to "hm?"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Hey man, I don't know why so many people here get your comment wrong.

What you say is right down to the point. I don't choose my license based on simplicity. I choose it as a best fit for my intend.

That's why I chose GPLv3, and why others choose BSD. Because I care how people re-publish my code and others don't. And if you don't, for maximum adoption, you use BSD.

It is a stupid assumption that people would choose BSD over GPL just because of simplicity.

Reply Score: 2

RE: hm?
by ToddB on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 15:51 UTC in reply to "hm?"
ToddB Member since:
2012-01-25

"Why this refusal to go completely opensource, by people who for some reason, think that Microsoft or other company (Be) can do better than worldwide coders? "

As a programmer who contributes to an open source project and not a GPL advocate, I hate the GPL and refuse to contribute code to any project that uses it. It is a slap in the face to contribute code and not even be able to choose my own license. BSD/MIT/Apache are open source licenses. So what if Microsoft employees can use open source to make their projects better, you are helping out their programmers it isn't like Microsoft is this single evil guy who takes everyones source code while laughing maniacally.

"I hate Microsoft therefore everyone should use GPL" is such a stupid argument.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: hm?
by Valhalla on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

It is a slap in the face to contribute code and not even be able to choose my own license.

Are you daft? You can choose whatever licence you want for your code. Even if you contribute your code to a GPL licenced project you also licence that same code under any other licence, since it's yours.

If you are going to licence your code at all (though I seriously doubt you are a programmer in any shape or form) then you really need to look up copyright and how it corresponds to licencing as you seem to have no clue whatsoever.

I hate the GPL and refuse to contribute code to any project that uses it.
Quelle surprise! And right before that you claim it's stupid to hate Microsoft...

Reply Score: 3

RE: hm?
by henderson101 on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 16:14 UTC in reply to "hm?"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Just to be sure that this guy is a crackpot, this is a direct quote from his personal site: to put it in to context, he is discussing monotheism and being Muslim (both perfectly valid and rational subjects for discussion), but slipped this one in:

Q: Has linux, gpl or opensource anything to do with religious thought?
A: Anything that benefits mankind, is in line with religious thought.

Reply Score: 2

RE: hm?
by Meor on Tue 24th Apr 2012 20:33 UTC in reply to "hm?"
Meor Member since:
2006-09-29

Billion dollar corporations run on GPL software and the writers aren't getting any of that money; how is a profit division argument even relevant?

If you're going to make something free, make it free. Someone may use it to make money and not share it with you, if you thought you could monetize it, don't make it OSS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: hm?
by Valhalla on Tue 24th Apr 2012 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Billion dollar corporations run on GPL software and the writers aren't getting any of that money; how is a profit division argument even relevant?

What billion dollar corporations are you referring to? Red Hat hires lots of full-time programmers to work on enhancing Linux and it's complementary software, same goes for other corporations making lots of money from Linux like IBM. And these enhancements make it back to all end users due to the GPL.

Reply Score: 2

Complexity?
by No it isnt on Sat 21st Apr 2012 19:40 UTC
No it isnt
Member since:
2005-11-14

Seriously?

Reply Score: 7

RE: Complexity?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 21st Apr 2012 19:54 UTC in reply to "Complexity?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Seriously?


GPLv3: 5120 words.
Modified BSD license: 220 words.

I rest my case.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Complexity?
by porcel on Sat 21st Apr 2012 20:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Complexity?"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

You may rest your case on the complexity issue, but the GPL v3 is a much better license on many fronts,, but particularly if you care about the issue of software patents as you seem to care.

I seriously doubt that GPL use is declining. It remains the license of choice for about sixty percent of projects, according to the article´s data and their projections may very well never be realized.

Of course, big proprietary vendors have been speaking ill of the GPL for a long time now and their marketing departments has spent a lot of money casting doubts and aspersions on the GPL, simply because it does not allow the release of proprietary software based on said code, something that the BSD license does allow.

In any case, software developers should think about what they want their project to be.

Would the Linux kernel exist today without the GPL and the friendly ecosystem around the code that it helped build?

I doubt so.

Reply Score: 9

v RE[3]: Complexity?
by Luminair on Sat 21st Apr 2012 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Complexity?"
RE[3]: Complexity?
by BeamishBoy on Sat 21st Apr 2012 23:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Complexity?"
BeamishBoy Member since:
2010-10-27

Would the Linux kernel exist today without the GPL and the friendly ecosystem around the code that it helped build?


It certainly wouldn't exist if it was released under GPL V3.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Complexity?
by demetrioussharpe on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 03:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Complexity?"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

"Would the Linux kernel exist today without the GPL and the friendly ecosystem around the code that it helped build?


It certainly wouldn't exist if it was released under GPL V3.
"

Let's take it even farther. I seem to recall (& I could be wrong here) that Linux wouldn't even exist if there wasn't so much confusion about the legality of the BSD codebase. Back in those days, there were no Free/Open/NetBSD. Had that not been the case, then the messiah of Linux would be a BSD user & Linux wouldn't even exist. In all likelyhood, he'd probably be on the core team of one of the BSD's. If not, then he'd probably have his own BSD group.

It's not about profits or licenses for every single programmer. It really doesn't matter if someone gets rich off of a programmer's codebase. Most people seem to forget that the very same programmer who originally wrote the code could have just as easily gotten rich off of it. Also, even if a company poaches the code, the original code still exists. It can still be modified in various ways & the original author still has the opportunity to get rich from it...if they so desire.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Complexity?
by s-peter on Sat 21st Apr 2012 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Complexity?"
s-peter Member since:
2006-01-29

Would the Linux kernel exist today without the GPL and the friendly ecosystem around the code that it helped build?

I doubt so.


As BeamishBoy has mentioned, it wouldn't exist if it was released with GPLv3. Furthermore, due to the complexity of the GPL, it is debatable how it applies to binary kernel modules. [1] Currently, using binary kernel modules is allowed, even though according to different interpretations of the GPL, some or all should be disallowed. If the strictest interpretation of GPL would be applied, the Linux ecosystem would be much more limited. So actually part of the popularity of Linux is attributable to the fact that the Linux authors decided not to strictly apply the limitations of the GPL. (Ironically, strictly enforcing the GPL, or moving it to GPL3 would cause greater adoption of, and more contributions to BSD kernels.) Thus, the Linux kernel is more of an example of what a mess living with the GPL is, than how great the GPL is.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Loadable_kernel_modules_a...

Edit: typo.

Edited 2012-04-21 23:58 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Complexity?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 00:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Complexity?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

The thing about licenses is that people are free to choose which license to use. You don't like the license? Don't use the license or any project that uses it. Simple.

Don't get on BSD's case for having an ideological freedom.

Certainly don't get on GPL's case for not being selfless. GPL is not a charity and was never intended as such. It's a pragmatic license for a pragmatic kind of freedom, acknowledging the fact that people like to be paid for their efforts (mostly in code and testing), and that freedom needs to be self-sustaining.

Like it or not, freedom is complex because life is complex.

Reply Score: 11

RE[4]: Complexity?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Complexity?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Thus, the Linux kernel is more of an example of what a mess living with the GPL is, than how great the GPL is.


It's strange because Linus Torvalds himself made the choice to use GPL (v2), not because it was a popular license but because he liked the conditions in the license. He recognized the importance of reciprocated sharing.

Whatever you think about later developments in the GPL, the main feature of GPL (and the Creative Commons equivalent) is the reciprocation aspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Strategy_for_...

The Tit-for-tat strategy is proven to be the best strategy for the Prisoner's Dilemma, after all.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Complexity?
by Soulbender on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 03:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Complexity?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

simply because it does not allow the release of proprietary software based on said code, something that the BSD license does allow.


Really? I could swear that many companies, for example Zimbra, provide community and commercial versions of their products where the commercial one contains proprietary code that never makes it to the community version.

Would the Linux kernel exist today without the GPL and the friendly ecosystem around the code that it helped build?


Considering Linus dislike for some parts of GPL2 and all of GPL3 then yes, it probably would. He has himself said that picking GPL was purely a practical decision and that he might have gone with BSD if it hadn't been for the At&T vs Berkely thing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Complexity?
by No it isnt on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 09:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Complexity?"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Sure. So it's more complex. But you seriously believe complexity comes into consideration? The GPL isn't difficult to understand., but v3 sucks if you're an evil corporation.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Complexity?
by ToddB on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 15:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Complexity?"
ToddB Member since:
2012-01-25

That is very important, we are programmers not lawyers. Most of us would rather not have a license at all, but unfortunately due to how insane everyone seems to have become over copyright it is a necessity. So a short license that is readable at a glance much appreciated, I have tried to read the GPL several times and I still don't understand what is and isn't acceptable use of source.. So I avoid it.

Reply Score: 1

Blrrp
by dylansmrjones on Sat 21st Apr 2012 20:31 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

Meep meep!

Reply Score: 4

RE: Blrrp
by galvanash on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 20:01 UTC in reply to "Blrrp"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Meep meep!


+100 Insightful! Seriously, in hindsight I think this is the best post in this entire thread... I've learned my lesson - BSD vs GPL discussions are for the crazy people - I'm staying out of it next time.

Edited 2012-04-22 20:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Blrrp
by dylansmrjones on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 15:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Blrrp"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I'm staying out of it next time.


Learned that long ago. The discussion is the same old shit anyway. Same old tired arguments.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Blrrp
by Kivada on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 20:56 UTC in reply to "Blrrp"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Meep meep!


WHAT'D YOU SAY ABOUT MY MOMMA!?

Reply Score: 2

This picture seems limited
by trev on Sat 21st Apr 2012 21:24 UTC
trev
Member since:
2006-11-22

Sorry but this stat seems to project a very limited view? Say there are 200 new projects and 50 choose license A. Of those 2 survive and thrive. Now saw there are 50 that choose license B and 10 of them survive and thrive. Even if license A gets more adoption it has a higher death rate too so in the end there are more "in use" projects using license B. My point is this stat by itself is really not a good metric. For most people looking around at the projects you use and seeing the licenses used is more important.

For me there are many projects I use that use GPL of some sort and some that use MIT, BSD, etc. Right now by and far the GPL is the dominant license in most of the desktop software. The server side has much more players that weigh in at varied levels (GPL, Apache, postgresql, etc.) but there the GPL is the most common as well. I know the linux kernel, xen, drupal nagios and ejabberd use it. I think apache would likely be the number 2 license in use by the server software I use most.

This discussion as it is framed seems a bit pointless to me. If I wanted to make the GPL look to be used less I can simply start 1000 non-gpl projects on sourceforge. If I want it to look good I start 1000 gpl projects. Wow, a HUGE shift in licensing preference that means .... nothing.

Reply Score: 6

uhm..
by martini on Sat 21st Apr 2012 22:01 UTC
martini
Member since:
2006-01-23

....what if all the "permissive" open source license projects get forked to GNU GPL?

that will screw this statistics....

From my point of view I don't see a diminish of the GNU GPL V2 software, but this is only an empiric interpretation.

I also had never hear about the Black Duck Software KnowledgeBase as a referent for Open Source project information. Was I living under a rock for the last 10 years?

Reply Score: 3

BSD vs GPL - again
by toast88 on Sat 21st Apr 2012 22:05 UTC
toast88
Member since:
2009-09-23

And here we go, yet another GPL vs BSD flame war. Aren't these getting boring?

What's the point of discussing these? Most projects and contributors have already lined out why they're using the GPL, they want to make sure that companies and enterprises who take advantage of free software actually contribute something back which is simply not the case and which is why BSD is not widely adopted.

The reason why Linux and associated projects like KDE and GNOME have become so massively successful is the GPL and hence there won't be a shift regarding the use of it.

It doesn't matter whether many small projects jump to using BSD or similar licenses as long as the most important projects like the Linux kernel, KDE, GNOME, gcc, VideoLAN, wine, GIMP, emacs, inkscape, LibreOffice and so on. And, of course, I'm using the GPL/LGPL for my own projects.

The GPL-backed Linux runs on more architectures than any other operating system ever conceived, supports more features than any operating system ever conceived, powers 90% of the top500, powers hundreds of millions of smart phones, most web servers and so much more. Still people come out of their caves and claim how superior *BSD is ;) . *yawn*

Reply Score: 3

RE: BSD vs GPL - again
by Soulbender on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 03:19 UTC in reply to "BSD vs GPL - again"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The reason why Linux and associated projects like KDE and GNOME have become so massively successful is the GPL


And here I was, thinking they are popular because they are actually good.

The GPL-backed Linux runs on more architectures than any other operating system ever conceived, supports more features than any operating system ever conceived, powers 90% of the top500, powers hundreds of millions of smart phones, most web servers and so much more. Still people come out of their caves and claim how superior *BSD is . *yawn*


It's funny that when we're talking about Linux quantity equals quality but when we're talking about Windows it doesn't.

Reply Score: 3

RE: BSD vs GPL - again
by Drumhellar on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 08:19 UTC in reply to "BSD vs GPL - again"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

The reason why Linux and associated projects like KDE and GNOME have become so massively successful is the GPL and hence there won't be a shift regarding the use of it.


I figured Gnome and KDE are so successful primarily because of the quality of software. In fact, KDE became successful DESPITE fears regarding licensing of QT. Yes, these fears spurned the creation of Gnome, but these were fears that were resolved a long time ago.

most important projects like the Linux kernel, KDE, GNOME, gcc, VideoLAN, wine, GIMP, emacs, inkscape, LibreOffice and so on.
... most web servers ...


With the exception of GCC, and possibly VLC (and obviously Linux), I would argue that Apache is more widely used than all of the others combined, and it has a permissive license.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: BSD vs GPL - again
by Lennie on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 08:48 UTC in reply to "RE: BSD vs GPL - again"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

If you look at number of installations, something like busybox (used on a lot of embedded Linux systems) probably is more widely used.

Obviously that is hard to measure though.

Busybox is GPLv2-only-and-not-v3 like the Linux kernel I believe.

Reply Score: 4

Practical considerations
by jessesmith on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 01:43 UTC
jessesmith
Member since:
2010-03-11

Personally, as an open source developer, I try to choose the license with the least restrictions possible. The reason is simply that it makes it easier for people to use my code in the future and it avoids all sorts of little gatchas.

It's not even the closed source vs open source issues which make GPL a pain to work with. The GPL is hard to work with for open source projects too. For example....

Linux can't include ZFS in the mainline kernel, even though both the kernel and ZFS are open source. It's a problem BSD projects don't have.

GPLv2 and GPLv3 aren't compatible, which was a huge mistake. It means if two projects were both GPLv2 and were sharing patches, and then one project updates to GPLv3 the code can only flow in one direction.

GRUB Legacy (GPLv2) can use signing keys for secure booting, but GRUBv2 (which is GPLv3) can't.

I use the GPLv2 from time to time, but it throws up walls to cooperation. I don't think that's healthy. The GPL has its place, but most of the time it is more trouble than it is a help, especially since GPLv3 came out.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Practical considerations
by Excarnate on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 04:30 UTC in reply to "Practical considerations"
Excarnate Member since:
2011-08-01

Personally, as an open source developer, I try to choose the license with the least restrictions possible.

So you release all your code into the public domain?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Practical considerations
by galvanash on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Practical considerations"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Personally, as an open source developer, I try to choose the license with the least restrictions possible.

So you release all your code into the public domain?


He said "license with the least restrictions possible". He didn't say "give up copyright". Copyright has built in restrictions - licenses can either expand them or relax them - all the way to the point where it has no legal ramification other than being a simple authorship acknowledgement.

You can't license software into the public domain - public domain software has no owner. You need an owner in order to license something. It is simply absent of copyright.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Practical considerations
by jessesmith on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 17:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Practical considerations"
jessesmith Member since:
2010-03-11

To answer the above post, not only did I say "license", but I believe I indicated least restrictive license _possible_.

When I'm working on a new project from scratch I will try to license it under a BSD style of license. Basically let anyone do whatever they want with the code. However, sometimes I work on projects which pull pieces from (or are linked to) software already licensed. For example, my most recent project uses code from a GPLed project, so (obviously) my project will have to be licensed under the GPL as well. However, the project I started previous to this one was done from scratch and doesn't incorporate third-party code/libraries and I was able to license it under the BSD license. (Which turned out to be an advantage as it was picked up for inclusion by one of the BSD projects and they probably wouldn't have touched it had I gone with a GPL license.)

I have released a few pieces of code under public domain, but they weren't so much functioning projects as example code which I thought would be helpful for people learning to program, such as college students.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Practical considerations
by Excarnate on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 03:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Practical considerations"
Excarnate Member since:
2011-08-01

He said "license with the least restrictions possible". He didn't say "give up copyright".

No duh. Basically, I was saying his/her stance of being the least restrictive (with a subtext of holier-than-thou) is not true.

S/he understands the benefits of licencing but isn't honest enough to say "License X has this requirement which is enough for me, I don't care about the other things."

Someone who truly wants their code to have the fewest restrictions will release it to the public domain. Someone who wants what the GPL provides (the inability for someone else to restrict said code and further developments at whim) will use that. The BSD license is fine, the apache license is fine, the MIT license is fine, so are most of the others, but taking a stance that you take the least restrictive license to allow ones code to travel the furthest had better be releasing into the public domain (to allow any use) or using the GPL (to force it to be spread widely--if it is worthwhile).

I'm a bit surprised I had to explain both of my comments. Surely the use of irony and sarcasm aren't unknown on the Internet.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Practical considerations
by galvanash on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 05:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Practical considerations"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Fair enough. I get your point now.

but taking a stance that you take the least restrictive license to allow ones code to travel the furthest had better be releasing into the public domain (to allow any use) or using the GPL (to force it to be spread widely--if it is worthwhile).


Id be careful with using the term "force" in describing anything the GPL does. I've already had to post like 10 replies elsewhere in this thread attempting to dig my way out of using that word. I knew this was a touchy topic but wow...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Practical considerations
by pfgbsd on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 02:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Practical considerations"
pfgbsd Member since:
2011-03-12

"Personally, as an open source developer, I try to choose the license with the least restrictions possible.

So you release all your code into the public domain?
"

If people in Africa could *eat* code, it would be our obligation to make all software public domain.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Practical considerations
by Lennie on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 08:52 UTC in reply to "Practical considerations"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I think ZFS is a bad example, as it is an exception. Not the rule. Lots of people think CDDL was specifically choosen to prevent it from being part of the Linux kernel.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Practical considerations
by Valhalla on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:36 UTC in reply to "Practical considerations"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Personally, as an open source developer, I try to choose the license with the least restrictions possible.

That's your choice and I applaud your generosity.


Linux can't include ZFS in the mainline kernel, even though both the kernel and ZFS are open source. It's a problem BSD projects don't have.

And the BSD projects can't use GPL licenced code while Linux don't have that problem and can use BSD licenced code, go figure.

The reason ZFS is incompatible with GPL was by design as Sun was facing severe competition from Linux and didn't want to allow it to use their key technology.


GPLv2 and GPLv3 aren't compatible, which was a huge mistake. It means if two projects were both GPLv2 and were sharing patches, and then one project updates to GPLv3 the code can only flow in one direction.

Eh? The GPLv2 licence says 'or later', so unless the 'GPLv2' project has removed the 'or later' clause then they are in no way incompatible. Only project I know of which has done so is Linux, however even here it's not the end of the road as you can dual-licence your code.


GRUB Legacy (GPLv2) can use signing keys for secure booting, but GRUBv2 (which is GPLv3) can't.

It's only incompatible with signing keys for secure booting if it doesn't allow the end user to sign keys, like with UEFI on Microsoft approved ARM machines. If the end user is allowed to sign keys to be valid then there's no problem with GPLv3.

Personally I see this as a great feature of GPLv3 as I don't want hardware which is artificially crippled to only boot code signed by a third party.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Practical considerations
by jessesmith on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Practical considerations"
jessesmith Member since:
2010-03-11

>> "Eh? The GPLv2 licence says 'or later', so unless the 'GPLv2' project has removed the 'or later' clause then they are in no way incompatible. Only project I know of which has done so is Linux, however even here it's not the end of the road as you can dual-license your code."

Just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist. Have you actually read the licenses of all the software you use? I can think of about half a dozen, besides the Linux kernel, which don't specify the "or later" version and won't (or can't) update to GPLv3.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Practical considerations
by Valhalla on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 19:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Practical considerations"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist. Have you actually read the licenses of all the software you use? I can think of about half a dozen, besides the Linux kernel, which don't specify the "or later" version and won't (or can't) update to GPLv3.

You stated that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible and they are NOT, Linus modified the GPLv2 licence he uses to be incompatible with GPLv3 (or any other later version) by removing the 'or later' clause because he was fully content with GPLv2. Standard GPLv3 and standard GPLv2 are compatible.

Also you say you can think of 6 projects which states GPLv2 only, I could think of two: Linux and Git, both originating from Linus Torvalds. Are you really saying that half a dozen projects stating 'GPLv2 only' is an issue?

Reply Score: 2

Which is more free?
by fretinator on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 02:59 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Hey, let's have a discussion on which license is more free - BSD or GPL.

Also, what's the best distro out there?

And, how about that new operating system, Emacs. Takes a while to boot up. Then again, that "beep" editor, VI, sure seems hard to learn.

50 bonus points for the first person to use a Nazi reference.

Reply Score: 10

RE: Which is more free?
by ingraham on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 05:40 UTC in reply to "Which is more free?"
ingraham Member since:
2006-05-20

You know who else didn't use copyleft licenses? HITLER!

Can I have my 50 bonus points now? :-)

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Which is more free?
by Doc Pain on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 07:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Which is more free?"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

You know who else didn't use copyleft licenses? HITLER!

Can I have my 50 bonus points now? :-)


No. You first have to accuse an uninvolved minority to be the reason for all the world's evils. :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Which is more free?
by Soulbender on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 07:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Which is more free?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I blame the smurfs.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Which is more free?
by Nth_Man on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 18:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Which is more free?"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

No. You first have to accuse an uninvolved minority to be the reason for all the world's evils. :-)

I blame the nazis :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Which is more free?
by Lennie on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 08:55 UTC in reply to "Which is more free?"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

That isn't all that complicated:

More freedom for the users of the software: GPL
(obligation to give the sourcecode to the users)

More freedom for developers of software based on existing code: BSD
(the developers decide what they want to do with it, including making it proprietary)

Reply Score: 4

A really stupid post
by Excarnate on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 05:13 UTC
Excarnate
Member since:
2011-08-01

Hey Thom, you need to up your standards. When you post a link to something as stupid as this:

"The GPL family now accounts for about 57% of all open source software, compared to 61% in June," Aslett wrote. More troubling for copyleft advocates, though, could be the projection Aslett and the 451 Group make based on the data.

""...if the current rate of decline continues, we project that the GPL family of licenses will account for only 50% of all open source software by September 2012."
"
How about this?

"If the current rate of decline continues, we project that the GPL family of licenses will account for 0% of all open source software by May 2013."

I was generous graphing their numbers. Given the quote as is in the article, it is really appallingly stupid.

Reply Score: 2

RE: A really stupid post
by stestagg on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 11:02 UTC in reply to "A really stupid post"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

If your statistics were accurate, you'd see that it's you who is wrong about this, not the linked article.

GPL usage is actually growing, just at about 10% of the adoption rate of other licenses. This means that the line you're extrapolating should be non-linear, i.e. an inverse proportion graph.

This means that your projection is probably off by at least 5 years

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: A really stupid post
by Excarnate on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE: A really stupid post"
Excarnate Member since:
2011-08-01

You might want to look "sarcasm" up, it really helps understand comments.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: A really stupid post
by stestagg on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A really stupid post"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

hahaha, d/w, I understand sarcasm.

I'm intrigued, given I don't know you, and couldn't see your expression or hear inflection when making that comment, how I was supposed to detect the sarcarm?

Altering your register doesn't really help either, given the number of people online who speak English as a foreign language

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: A really stupid post
by Kivada on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: A really stupid post"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Sarcasm isn't something exclusive to spoken language, it was pretty obvious to me he was being sarcastic.

Was he supposed to post something like this under it? http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/264/621/d4a.png

Reply Score: 2

Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

As for wether or not GPL is less used out there today then I'd say no, not for what it has always been primarily used for, which is 'finished' open source products. Looking at open source applications GPL remains as strong as ever, looking at components, frameworks then permissive licencing is as strong as ever. However there's been an explosion in open source web oriented frameworks/components as of late, and they are pretty much all permissively licenced which may very well be what skews the stats.

The article states (after being corrected) that projects aren't moving from GPL towards permissive licencing, but that new projects are increasingly permissively licenced. However we see no data describing in which areas these new projects are mainly oriented. However all it takes is a look over at github to see an enourmous amount of new projects being posted every day, the vast majority of which relates to web tech frameworks/components and also most of which starts off as a fork from something else.

Unless I see a sudden drastic change in choice of licence for open source applications then I'd say it's business as usual, with GPL being the major licence used for larger projects and with BSD/MIT and other permissive licences dominating for framework/component type code.

Reply Score: 4

Complexity is missing the point.
by Torbjorn Vik Lunde on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 14:02 UTC
Torbjorn Vik Lunde
Member since:
2009-09-04

It’s not complexity or simplicity, but what you want to do with your free/open software.

Do you want people to be able to create proprietary stuff based on something: BSD/MIT.

Do you want anything derived from your software to also be open/free software: GPL.

Both licenses are pretty good at doing what they are meant to be doing.

Reply Score: 3

Missing the point
by tomz on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 14:07 UTC
tomz
Member since:
2010-05-06

I haven't read through all the comments, but it seems to be BSD (not even saying 2 or 3 clause) v.s. GPL. But there is the Apache license and Mozilla Public license and others.

The BSD licenses don't say much - other than the copyright notice requirement and "as-is", is it that different than simply declaring it public domain?

The other side is the more complex licenses have been analyzed by engineers and lawyers to insure they are binding, i.e. they are likely to stand up in court and many have been tested. Perhaps there is no reason to test the BSD, but what if it was infringed? Or if the "as-is" doesn't hold up when it damages something?

I would not say the GPL is any more anti-business than any other license - Apple goes on with page after page, yet people use their software. The terms are simple and not hard to comply with, instead of paying money, you pay it forward.

That said, also look at OpenOffice, now Apache with the Apache license - and I would note Java is supposedly under that, but Oracle is suing Google. LibreOffice is the GPL version and seems to be attracting more development.

As others have noted, the quantity of projects is not as significant as the quality and maturity. Most of a GNU/Linux distribution is some GPL variant. The large amount of GPL software already available means it is being improved, not reinvented. This doesn't prohibit innovation, merely concentrates it. So an existing GPL project comes up with a totally new and improved thing, it isn't counted as new although it may have leapfrogged the competition.

And it comes down to purpose - I've used all the licenses, and it depends on whether it is for educational or standards usage where I might want to be lax, or if I want it to be and stay free (unless someone wants to pay for the privilege of taking it proprietary).

Reply Score: 2

...
by Hiev on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 16:40 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

My theory is that programers and sponsors are getting less paranoid, the GPL license is sustained by fear and according the FSF the GPL isn the only thing that can save "Freedom", but at the same time is a very intrusive license, the GPLv3 didn't help, in the contrary affected the GPL adoption IMHO. The double standars of RMS of playing blind with the FSF sponsors like IBM but accusing everyone else made them loss credibility also.

Reply Score: 1

GPL vs BSD
by andydread on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 01:33 UTC
andydread
Member since:
2009-02-02

I don't see why people on here are making this so complicated. If you don't want people filing patents regarding your code and then suing you over your own code then you license your code under the GPL. If you don't care to be sued by some entity for patent infringement over some code your distributed then use BSD. simple.

Reply Score: 2

copyleft vs viral
by cyrilleberger on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 06:24 UTC
cyrilleberger
Member since:
2006-02-01

Seems like the author of the orignal article is confusing viral and copyleft. GPL is viral in the sense that it impose distribution of sources for all derivatives works. But many licenses have weaker copyleft requirement, often file base, such as MozillaPL or Ms-PL.

Reply Score: 2

GPL has advantages
by siki_miki on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 07:06 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

GPL is better (for some projects of course) as it keeps the source open, not allowing companies like Apple,MS to take it in house and use to their advantage (while making it closed).
Good example is KHTML-baed Webkit, Apple had to give out the source code and therefore every mobile device today (except WP7 based) has a Webkit browser, while on the desktop it's holding a strong position through Chrome browser. If KHTML was more permissivly licensed, it would never see the light of the day outside Cupertino.

Another one - Linux kernel. We'd have dozens of closed proprietary varants, including Android kernel. GPL forces people to make their code available and thus it can be integrated (depends on manpower of course).

Related problem is companies are especially afraid of GPLv3, e.g. Apple moved away from Samba due to this.

Of course, the license has to be appropriate for a type of software. A library won't see much use in non-GPL software software if it's licensed as vanilla GPL (without linking exception).

Reply Score: 3

What fills the gap?
by bitwelder on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 08:31 UTC
bitwelder
Member since:
2010-04-27

One thing that is not clear to me in the graph is this: GPL adoption rate is reducing (there is a knee around Jul-11) but the only other group of licenses reported (globally reported as MIT/Apache/BSD) seems to go up only at a *constant* rate.
Then there must be third group of licenses whose rate of adoption is increasing...

Reply Score: 2

Not very new
by AdamW on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 17:14 UTC
AdamW
Member since:
2005-07-06

Can't be bothered wading through six pages of comments, but just in case no-one else posted it; this is not 'new', it's four months old.

The most important point made at the time is that use of the GPL is not actually declining. It's just growing at a slower rate than use of BSD-style licenses, in the set of projects covered by the survey.

Reply Score: 3

Re:
by kurkosdr on Tue 24th Apr 2012 08:55 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

Simple, companies like Google do want to support open source or mostly open source projects. but they also want a pull back plan.

I actually like the GPL, because once it's open source, it will always be (I don't care about the amount of words in the license, I ll leave that to lawyers). The only way to make a GPL piece of software closed again is to write it from scratch.

But we 've got to be realists. Open source is a radical model (you 've got to give your product away, everyone can get it with one recompile, and you 've got to give people permission to change it and redistribute), so it's understandable companies that go for it want a pull back plan.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Re:
by zima on Sat 28th Apr 2012 22:28 UTC in reply to "Re:"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I actually like the GPL, because once it's open source, it will always be [...] The only way to make a GPL piece of software closed again is to write it from scratch.

Not strictly - "always" is a long time, and copyright (on which GPL depends) expires ...so eventually, it will be possible to get hold of some ex-GPL public domain code (but yeah, for this to impact its openness, it would have to be long unused and obscure anyway, likely only in one copy, so not much of a difference; but hey, if you can't be pedantic on web comments, where can you be? ;p )

Edited 2012-04-28 22:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2