Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 00:59 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source

For some years now, one has not had to look far to find articles proclaiming the demise of the GNU General Public License. That license, we are told, is too frightening for many businesses, which prefer to use software under the far weaker permissive class of license. But there is a business model that is based on the allegedly scary nature of the GPL, and there are those who would like to make it more lucrative; the only problem is that the GPL isn't quite scary enough yet.

I'm sure we can have a civil discussion about the merits and demerits of the GPL.

Order by: Score:
Comment by ssokolow
by ssokolow on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 02:57 UTC
ssokolow
Member since:
2010-01-21

True, but the article isn't about the GPL. It's about a derivative of the Affero GPL called the SSPL. (Also, a very disappointingly FUD-y title to see on LWN.)

The Affero GPL is a license that builds on the GPL by modifying the GPL's "must share source with anyone you distribute binaries to" rule to say "If you run a modified version of this on a server, you must make the modified source available to anyone who accesses the server."

According to the Article, MongoDB Inc. is pissed that so many businesses are selling access to un-modifed versions of MongoDB as a service without paying for a license fee, so they're relicensing under a license they call the SSPL.

Looking at the excerpt given, it seems the SSPL turns the AGPL into what is effectively a Shared Source license (ie. you can read the source, but must purchase a license to use it) by requiring unsatisfiable terms for the infrastructure used in concert with it. (ie. By requiring that you share what is effectively your entire stack under the SSPL too, when nobody in the real world has the rights necessary to relicense their entire stack under the SSPL.)

As flussence commented on that article, "The company just XFree86'ed itself." (GPL-family licenses are non-revokable to guarantee that, if someone tries to pull something like this, people can fork the last free version.)

As for having a civil discussion, kemitchell's comment is a good starting point.

https://lwn.net/Articles/768812/

One of the takeaways is that they're trying to close a hole that was left in the AGPL by design.

I find it especially funny that they claim to have submitted it to the OSI for approval when point 9 of the Open Source Definition clearly says:

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.


If nothing else, it clearly violates the spirit of that.

Edited 2018-11-02 02:59 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 03:24 UTC
jigzat
Member since:
2008-10-30

I have always thought that GPL only benefits hardware manufacturers and big companies and it has cheapen software to the point that people no longer expects to pay for it.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by jigzat
by ssokolow on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 05:50 UTC in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

I have always thought that GPL only benefits hardware manufacturers and big companies and it has cheapen software to the point that people no longer expects to pay for it.


To be honest, I never expected to pay for it.

When I was a kid:
- I saw no problem with free copies of something that could be duplicated for free.
- I bought games for the service of getting access to stuff I couldn't copy off my friends.

I discovered open-source software in my teens.

Now:
- I see no problem in sharing around copies of open-source software
- I pay GOG.com or Humble Bundle Inc. for the convenience of trustworthy updates and reliable off-site backups of games.
- I buy games not available on GOG.com or Humble Bundle Inc. as old CDs, cartridges, or floppies so I have something physical to collect.
- I write my own replacements for any non-game software I want to use which isn't available as open-source... or at least freeware.

At the moment, I'm working on an installer builder (like Inno Setup or NSIS) for DOS for my retrocomputing hobby, since all the pre-Windows 3.1 stuff is shareware.

https://twitter.com/deitarion/status/1057460614916960257

Doesn't sound too different from what Bill Gates fought against in the beginning, when he was trying to convince people to pay for something with no physicality that could be copied onto a provided floppy essentially for free. (Just human instinct recognizing that data is more like jokes and gossip than like food and toys. We have an intuitive grasp of the distinction between scarce and non-scarce resources.)

Edited 2018-11-02 05:55 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by Wondercool on Sat 3rd Nov 2018 00:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
Wondercool Member since:
2005-07-08

So let's say you have a business idea. You have a great idea to solve someones problem.
It's not some game or library or hobby

You spent 2 years coding it.

Are you going to open source it and never get paid because someone uses your code and undercuts you?
Or are you going to charge a normal amount of money and get rewarded for your effort

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by jigzat
by ssokolow on Sat 3rd Nov 2018 01:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

So let's say you have a business idea. You have a great idea to solve someones problem.
It's not some game or library or hobby

You spent 2 years coding it.

Are you going to open source it and never get paid because someone uses your code and undercuts you?
Or are you going to charge a normal amount of money and get rewarded for your effort


You're already operating on a flawed assumption. The only time I don't open-source right near the beginning of the development process and "push early, push often" is when I didn't practice proper commit hygiene and have private or copyrighted stuff in the commit history.

(I have plans for a GUI, currently code-named git-divvy, for efficiently going through the entire commit history of a Git project, to filter out files or hunks that contain sensitive information and/or split it into two or more subproject repos. Once that's done, I'll be rapidly making at least half a dozen new Git repos public.)

I also consider that "spent 2 years coding it, only to charge for it" to be too big a risk. If it's really such a good idea, I could easily be beaten to market by someone with more capital, more manpower, or who's already quietly working on it.

Also, "charge a normal amount of money and get rewarded for your effort" has always been a gross oversimplification. Sharing software around has always existed and building market share has never been as easy as you seem to think.

Finally, money isn't the only reward one can get for their work. When I write software and I'm not being paid to write it for someone else, it tends to be for three purposes:

1. Scratch my own itches

2. Build a portfolio piece to get my name out there

3. "Be the change I want to see in the world" (I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to go back to a world where you had to pay for encyclopedias.)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by jigzat
by Wondercool on Sat 3rd Nov 2018 15:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by jigzat"
Wondercool Member since:
2005-07-08

Clearly for you software doesn't have much value and it even costs you 'money' as you offer your spare time to code. This change in thinking makes it much more difficult to make money from Free Software as the perception is that it should be free (as in beer) too.

I used to be a proponent of Free Software, but lately I am bit more cynical. Over the last 30 years we have seen the slow but steady devaluation of software. Partially caused by millions of people picking up coding and the devaluation of software quality i.e. very little investment is put into creating a well crafted product as this isn't the focus of companies anymore.

Free Software on top of this made software prices come down a lot as often it didn't cost much compared to the shrinkwrapped box. We now live in a world where if the app is more than 1 euro on your phone or not free, you aren't willing to pay for it.

In order to live of software you have to resort to advertising, or sell crack cocaine inside the product (addictive addons) or beg (like Wikipedia or Patreon sites). Big multinationals say they are Open Source, but they are only in name (Google Android, Oracle Java, many others), further hollowing out the ecosystem. They are laughing: rather than having a huge department of testers and coders, they use people like you who do the coding for free.

So am I against Free Software? I don't think so, but I would only be willing to Open Source my libraries, possible domain languages and tools but not the business knowledge that I gathered through sweat and tears. If that software becomes more popular/is improved upon by other people, all the better for me.

Note: Google thinks the same, the Search algorithm or the tracking software aren't Open Sourced)

As an aside: that's why I prefer the GPL if I had to choose, at least if someone wants to build on top, it has to go back into the community.

Edited 2018-11-03 15:43 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by jigzat
by ssokolow on Sat 3rd Nov 2018 19:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by jigzat"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

Clearly for you software doesn't have much value and it even costs you 'money' as you offer your spare time to code.


No, actually. My viewpoint lies at the intersection of the following details:

1. Copyright is an anomaly in our perception of culture that began as a censorship pact between the British crown and printing guilds and, when adapted for good in the U.S., was originally intended to encourage the enrichment of the public domain. It has been hugely corrupted. (It was originally only intended to further the progress of "science and the useful arts" (ie. science and mapmaking) and the first U.S. copyright law only covered books and charts. Everything else has been lawyered in through tactics similar to what produced software patents.)

Not specifically relevant to software, since I do think that something more like a 14-year, non-renewable copyright term is the proper solution for a time-limited monopoly on software you create, but that'll help you to see where I'm coming from.

2. No other type of entrepreneur (and that's what both artists and freelance programmers are) is allowed to freeload off a finite amount of work for the rest of their life.

3. Fashion designs, jokes, and recipes aren't subject to copyright, and businesses developed around those things just fine. In fact, you'd be laughed out of the room if you tried to argue that people should pay a license fee every time they share a recipe or re-tell a joke. That's why file-sharing enthusiasts made T-Shirts which parioded the old "Home Taping is Killing Music" campaign by saying "Home Cooking is Killing The Restaurant Industry" under a cookpot and crossbones. (It's also why you see trademarks being incorporated so prominently into brand-name clothing designs, for that matter.)

4. I think that the availability of non-game software has too much value as a public good to justify making an exception to advantage my petty profit. (This is the argument Eben Moglen makes when, in his talks, he says "Imagine a world where you have to pay a license fee for every bit of math you want to use.")


This change in thinking makes it much more difficult to make money from Free Software as the perception is that it should be free (as in beer) too.

I used to be a proponent of Free Software, but lately I am bit more cynical. Over the last 30 years we have seen the slow but steady devaluation of software. Partially caused by millions of people picking up coding and the devaluation of software quality i.e. very little investment is put into creating a well crafted product as this isn't the focus of companies anymore.

Free Software on top of this made software prices come down a lot as often it didn't cost much compared to the shrinkwrapped box. We now live in a world where if the app is more than 1 euro on your phone or not free, you aren't willing to pay for it.


I'm not sympathetic to this viewpoint. It feels to me like a computer company without a Steve Jobs complaining about the commoditization of PC and Android hardware.

Commoditization increases access, and I don't think access to non-game software should be a privilege denied to the poor and working classes unless they break the law to get it.

As an aside: that's why I prefer the GPL if I had to choose, at least if someone wants to build on top, it has to go back into the community.


Agreed. The GPL is my default choice, though I will choose MIT licensing on a case-by-case basis if I feel that there's more benefit to society in broad adoption than in getting patches contributed back.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by jigzat
by Wondercool on Sun 4th Nov 2018 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by jigzat"
Wondercool Member since:
2005-07-08

Maybe you get me wrong, when I say I slave for 2 years on some particular business problem and I solve it, I don't want a patent on it or eternal rights to milk it.

It's totally free for other people to slave for 2 years too.

But I want some time period to make some money.

We can argue a long time about how long this period should be (certainly 15 years does sound too short - what happens if the book get popular only after 14 years??) but for me it certainly shouldn't be zero.

Also, there is a *lot* of software that isn't benificial to mankind, just a few people that like to pay for it. I don't want to run the risk having it copied by making it Open Source.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by jigzat
by ssokolow on Sun 4th Nov 2018 03:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by jigzat"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

Maybe you get me wrong, when I say I slave for 2 years on some particular business problem and I solve it, I don't want a patent on it or eternal rights to milk it.

It's totally free for other people to slave for 2 years too.

But I want some time period to make some money.


Funny you should say that when a copyright isn't a patent. (And even if it were, studies have shown that, unless you're a big, wealthy company, with a big legal budget, a patent isn't worth the time and effort spent applying for it.)

I mentioned one of my concerns being that someone else could beat me to it just as I'm getting close to release, or rapidly clone it from scratch by throwing manpower at it once it's proven viable.

Copyright does nothing to protect against those eventualities.

We can argue a long time about how long this period should be (certainly 15 years does sound too short - what happens if the book get popular only after 14 years??) but for me it certainly shouldn't be zero.


I read a study a while ago that showed that 90% of the revenue for a work is made within the first 10 years. Beyond that, it's a matter of public good over private gain.

U.S. copyright was originally an opt-in 19 year term with the option to renew for another 19, fiction was never intended to be protected (science and the useful arts, remember), and the U.S. became a cultural juggernaut specifically by ignoring British copyrights.

I said 14 because I believe that, in the context of computer software, if you haven't made money off your code after 14 years, it's almost certainly too obsolete by then to justify a longer term.

Also, there is a *lot* of software that isn't benificial to mankind, just a few people that like to pay for it. I don't want to run the risk having it copied by making it Open Source.


And? Nothing is forcing you to open-source your code. If it's really such a niche thing, the lack of demand is likely to be enough, on its own, for you to spend a decade playing whac-a-mole with software pirates before someone with the requisite coding skill, interest, and drive decides to put together a competing product.

Heck, just look at the state of video editing and Autotune clones in the open-source world and they're not even all that niche.

Edited 2018-11-04 03:39 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by jigzat
by tylerdurden on Tue 6th Nov 2018 21:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by jigzat"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Over the last 30 years we have seen the slow but steady devaluation of software.


Well that must be "news" to the software industry that has grown in size and profits almost exponentially during those 30 years of "devaluation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by jigzat
by zima on Thu 8th Nov 2018 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by jigzat"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Prices dropping for many categories (well, definetely not all...) of software and size increase of software industry don't have to be that much at odds with each other, if market greatly expanded.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by jigzat
by kwan_e on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 10:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I have always thought that GPL only benefits hardware manufacturers and big companies and it has cheapen software to the point that people no longer expects to pay for it.


What? BSD benefits big companies. IBM itself has very strict processes around using GPL software, whereas BSD and MIT license is pretty much a free-for-all.

MINIX is used by Intel, and Andrew Tannenbaum crazily tried to argue that resulted in more freedom, when it only benefited Intel and everyone else was left with a security hole.

GPL gets a lot of FUD thrown its way from open source developers who are paid by big companies.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by Megol on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 13:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
Megol Member since:
2011-04-11

"I have always thought that GPL only benefits hardware manufacturers and big companies and it has cheapen software to the point that people no longer expects to pay for it.


What? BSD benefits big companies. IBM itself has very strict processes around using GPL software, whereas BSD and MIT license is pretty much a free-for-all.
"
Free for all who accept and follow the license, yes. As intended.

MINIX is used by Intel, and Andrew Tannenbaum crazily tried to argue that resulted in more freedom, when it only benefited Intel and everyone else was left with a security hole.

In a later post you talk about someone else using a fallacy, how many fallacies can you find here?

GPL gets a lot of FUD thrown its way from open source developers who are paid by big companies.

Most open source developers that are paid by big companies write GPL software. This is just hand waving.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by jigzat
by kwan_e on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 16:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Most open source developers that are paid by big companies write GPL software.


This is just hand waving.


I agree. Your statement is hand waving.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by jigzat
by Megol on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by jigzat"
Megol Member since:
2011-04-11

I agree. Your statement is hand waving.

So how many fallacies did you find in your post? Hint: there's more than two.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Comment by jigzat
by kwan_e on Sat 3rd Nov 2018 04:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by jigzat"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"I agree. Your statement is hand waving.

So how many fallacies did you find in your post? Hint: there's more than two.
"

Name them and pinpoint them then. I did for another comment. Your delaying here right now amounts to nothing more than butthurt.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by Drumhellar on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 15:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

MINIX is used by Intel, and Andrew Tannenbaum crazily tried to argue that resulted in more freedom, when it only benefited Intel and everyone else was left with a security hole.



How the hell did you get that from what Tanenbaum wrote about Intel using MINIX in the IME?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by jigzat
by kwan_e on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"tried to argue that resulted in more freedom
How the hell did you get that from what Tanenbaum wrote about Intel using MINIX in the IME? "

https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/

If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users.


You're right. I only thought he said "more freedom" because I misremembered him as being reasonable. Turns out he said "maximum amount of freedom".

Thanks for the correction.

Edited 2018-11-02 16:27 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by jigzat
by Drumhellar on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by jigzat"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Except he clearly didn't say more freedom was the result of Intel using MINIX for the IME.

he specifically said it was an example of freedom.

Those are completely different things.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by jigzat
by kwan_e on Sat 3rd Nov 2018 04:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by jigzat"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Except he clearly didn't say more freedom was the result of Intel using MINIX for the IME.


Except I clearly didn't say that he said this. I replied about the licence in regards to how the GPL doesn't benefit large companies. And he specifically said the licence gave maximum freedom.

I quoted the exact thing I was making a point about. It's no use you trying to argue something completely different.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by jigzat
by Drumhellar on Sun 4th Nov 2018 06:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by jigzat"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

You isn't so clear that you did.

MINIX is used by Intel, and Andrew Tannenbaum crazily tried to argue that resulted in more freedom, when it only benefited Intel and everyone else was left with a security hole.


I read that part of the post as suggesting that MINIX being used by Intel is what Tanenbaum arged resulted in more freedom, not the license that MINIX is licensed under. It certainly isn't clear from the way that specific sentence was structured you were talking about the license.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by jigzat
by kwan_e on Sun 4th Nov 2018 08:58 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by jigzat"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Of course it was.

I was replying to a very specific comment with a very specific point/question about licences. That MINIX paragraph was smack bang between two paragraphs about licences. And there wasn't a preceding quote that reset the context. It was straightforward, uninterrupted comment. You also seemed familiar with what Andrew Tannenbaum said about MINIX when that bit of news came out, so you must have read his bit about the licence.

Why would I have a completely unrelated paragraph in the middle of two paragraphs that were related to the comment it was in reply to?

Every single piece of evidence is there that it was talking about the licence.

Do people not get taught how to write essays at school? Essays have an overarching point, with more paragraphs supporting the main point. Comments are not essays, sure, but come on! There's a point where you're supposed to not require hand-holding or spoon-feeding.

OSNews has a threaded view, and on the comments link in the sidebar, you can also see the link to the comment that it was in reply to. Those features are available so that we can have context without having to spell the context out every single damn comment, or in this case, paragraph.

I have a sinking feeling that a lot of people here don't read long-form writing. God help them if they ever have to read a novel that doesn't tell them exactly everything so they don't have to figure anything out. Bloody hell, how do people here even write programs? Do people see a white space separated block of code within a function and thinks it has nothing to do with the blocks of code before or after it in the same function? Are people's comprehension depending on whitespace on a more absurd level than Python?

And my comment definitely wasn't a novel. Maybe all these years of reading technical writing has rotted people's ability to read anything that's not a manpage.

Edited 2018-11-04 09:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Misleading
by nicubunu on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 06:01 UTC
nicubunu
Member since:
2014-01-08

GPL is so scary that Red Hat, a GPL company, was just bought for $34B... Seriously, Affero GPL is not GPL.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kurkosdr
by kurkosdr on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 09:55 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

I'm sure we can have a civil discussion about the merits and demerits of the GPL.


*Peter Parker's boss laugh*

Yeah sure.

Edited 2018-11-02 09:55 UTC

Reply Score: 1

v Comment by kurkosdr
by kurkosdr on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 10:29 UTC
RE: Comment by kurkosdr
by kwan_e on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 11:23 UTC in reply to "Comment by kurkosdr"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Ah,the classic ad hominem fallacy. Also the genetic fallacy.

Never debate the actual legal merits of a legal document. Just attack the face of it, and not even deal with the other people who worked on the document.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr
by Brendan on Sat 3rd Nov 2018 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kurkosdr"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

Never debate the actual legal merits of a legal document. Just attack the face of it, and not even deal with the other people who worked on the document.


The debate isn't about legalities (the document is a tool that fulfils its intended purpose). The debate is about economics and ethics, not legalities (should people use a tool that fulfils this intended purpose).

For an example, let's say I want to destroy the market for children's games so I write a few children's games and let people have them for free; and faced with an inability to buy food (because I've maliciously devalued their work) other developers start adding manipulative advertising to children's games. Is anything about this ethical?

For another example, let's say that there's many commercial Unix vendors and I want to destroy the market for Unix operating systems so I write a version of *nix and let people have it for free; and faced with an inability to compete (because I've maliciously devalued their work) commercial OS developers go bankrupt and/or discontinue their operating systems; and then once the competition is annihilated by predatory pricing (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing ) I switch to a devious scam involving hidden costs where the price of developing the OS gets built into the amount people pay for unrelated products (hardware from lots of companies, goods and services from companies that have a support contract with Redhat, etc), such that people end up paying bucket loads of $$ for the "free" OS without realising it (including people that don't even use the OS). Is anything about this ethical?

- Brendan

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by kurkosdr
by kwan_e on Sat 3rd Nov 2018 20:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

That... has nothing to do with what my comment was in reply to.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by kurkosdr
by tylerdurden on Tue 6th Nov 2018 21:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by kurkosdr"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

That's odd. I'd assumed that if you were the CEO of a software company, your first priority would be to move from your parent's basement.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kurkosdr
by kurkosdr on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 14:51 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

BTW I looked at the MongoDB license quotes and the contributor agreement quotes. At this point they can just stick an EULA to the product and an all rights reserved notice to the code and be done with it. No reason to create more useless "source licenses".

At least with Microsoft, what is their code is their code, and what's my code is my code. Microsoft doesn't force me to change the license of my software if I happen to run a Microsoft database as part of a commercial service.

You see, Linux beards are a weird bunch. They pretend to like communes but in reality they would like to be the next Steve Jobs. That's what I meant with my "axe to grind" quote above. For the Linux beards, any corporation using a coder's software to offer value-added services without redirecting a significant part of the resulting revenue to the coder is an anathema. Well, dear Linux beards, if you wanted to have a guaranteed revenue source when someone uses your product, just make it proprietary. No more exotic licenses creating jobs for lawyers, we already have too many of them, thank you very much.

Edited 2018-11-02 14:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by kurkosdr
by bert64 on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 18:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by kurkosdr"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

You can buy a commercial license of mongodb instead of complying with this new license, which is no different to buying a commercial license from microsoft.
Mongo gives you two choices,, microsoft typically only give you 1.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr
by Drumhellar on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 20:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kurkosdr"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

And if Microsoft had offered a free or open source product for years, and then suddenly made changes to the license agreement that that made their product completely unusable in an effort to force users to buy their premium version, you would be criticizing them rather harshly.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr
by ssokolow on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kurkosdr"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

You can buy a commercial license of mongodb instead of complying with this new license, which is no different to buying a commercial license from microsoft.
Mongo gives you two choices,, microsoft typically only give you 1.


As one of the commenters pointed out, commercial licenses appear to start at $12,000 per year, which is quite the unexpected new expense on your balance sheet.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kurkosdr
by tylerdurden on Wed 7th Nov 2018 20:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Depending on the size of the business and the expected revenue generated by the product/infrastructure using the software, a $12K yearly license really is a non-issue.

It depends on how competitive products perform and cost.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kurkosdr
by ssokolow on Fri 2nd Nov 2018 23:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by kurkosdr"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

You see, Linux beards are a weird bunch. They pretend to like communes but in reality they would like to be the next Steve Jobs.


I have a beard and use Linux as my primary operating system. Does that make me a "Linux beard"?

If so, here's me raising my hand as a Linux beard who only demands money (a scarce resource) for his time (a scarce resource) rather than the non-scarce results of that time.

Edited 2018-11-02 23:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Why?
by martini on Sun 4th Nov 2018 14:55 UTC
martini
Member since:
2006-01-23

Why companies are scared about the GNU GPL.

1) If your plan is to close source the software on the future, you should be scared of the GNU GPL.

2) If you wish to hide a part of the source code since it gives you "advantage", you should be scared of the GNU GPL.

3) If you plan to use/develop open source software as a "bait and switch" or as a "embrace extend extinguish" stragety, you should be scared of the GNU GPL.

As an individual I'm not afraid of the GNU GPL, as a corporation trying to "protect assets" and trying to get an advantage over the market is a different story.

I would go the way that users/customers should suggest or force companies to embrace GNU GPL.

Regards

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why?
by kwan_e on Wed 7th Nov 2018 08:17 UTC in reply to "Why?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I would go the way that users/customers should suggest or force companies to embrace GNU GPL.

Regards


Not even Stallman is that extreme.

The only user/customer that can "force" any company to use the GPL is if the government department putting out a tender has the policy of mandating any software developed for it.

Reply Score: 2