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.
Thread beginning with comment 515107
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sat 21st Apr 2012 22:01 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 Parent Score: 1

RE: hm?
by legume42 on Sat 21st Apr 2012 20:20 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 Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: hm?
by tuma324 on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 13:09 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 Parent Score: 1

RE: hm?
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 21st Apr 2012 20:26 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 Parent Score: 16

v RE[2]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sat 21st Apr 2012 22:06 in reply to "RE: hm?"
RE[2]: hm?
by MollyC on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 04:45 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: hm?
by Savior on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 06:23 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 Parent Score: 1

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: hm?
by arsipaani on Sat 21st Apr 2012 21:07 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 Parent Score: 6

RE: hm?
by jigzat on Sat 21st Apr 2012 21:20 in reply to "hm?"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

If you are willing to let your code go away you should not care if someone else makes a fortune out of it? That is as "selfish" as keeping your code proprietary.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: hm?
by BluenoseJake on Sat 21st Apr 2012 21:33 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 Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: hm?
by Kivada on Sat 21st Apr 2012 23:48 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 Parent Score: 2

RE: hm?
by bassbeast on Sat 21st Apr 2012 22:44 in reply to "hm?"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Lets all just point out the elephant in the room, okay? the problem with GPL is V3 which is as anti-business as RMS could possibly make it. this frankly is not surprising, as the man does gush on and on at Stallman.org about how wonderful Chavez is while ironically constantly railing on "big brother" corporations being a threat to "freedom".

But RMS is gonna find out that its businesses paying for FOSS and when they won't touch it with a 50 foot pole? Well you get to see what happens. if you don't want others using your code there are frankly over a dozen licenses out there for you to choose from, or you can roll your own. But if you go with GPL V3 you can say goodbye to most of the appstores and you can say goodbye to most corporations wanting to buy from you, GPL V3 simply isn't in their best interests. Heck look at Google, the darling of the FOSS world, and even THEY won't allow any GPL V3 code to touch Android or ChromeOS!

You are seeing this backlash because RMS hates corporations and put as many blocks as he could in GPL V3. within 3 years we shall see who was right, Stallman and his new GPL or the corps but I have a feeling that MPL or some other license will be switched to and GPL will slowly wither just as we are seeing, simply because no company is gonna bankroll software that is hostile to them.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: hm?
by Kivada on Sat 21st Apr 2012 23:57 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 Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: hm?
by Valhalla on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:14 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 Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:37 in reply to "RE: hm?"
ParadoxUncreated Member since:
2009-12-05

RMS is not anti-business. GPL is not anti-business.

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.

So we will let the art speak: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BH7poMtPVU

Edited 2012-04-22 12:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE: hm?
by Soulbender on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 02:22 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 Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: hm?
by JAlexoid on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 12:34 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 Parent Score: 2

RE: hm?
by galvanash on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 05:33 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 Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: hm?
by tuma324 on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 18:43 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 Parent Score: 3

RE: hm?
by lucas_maximus on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 08:31 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 Parent Score: 2

RE: hm?
by silix on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 13:37 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: hm?
by Kivada on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 20:48 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 Parent Score: 3

RE: hm?
by renox on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 17:46 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 Parent Score: 3

RE: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 22:38 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 Parent Score: 0

Pragmatic vs theoretical
by thesunnyk on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 01:31 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 Parent Score: 2

RE: Pragmatic vs theoretical
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 02:36 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 Parent Score: 3

RE: hm?
by Ford Prefect on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 10:36 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 Parent Score: 2

RE: hm?
by ToddB on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 15:51 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: hm?
by Valhalla on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 17:28 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 Parent Score: 3

RE: hm?
by henderson101 on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 16:14 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 Parent Score: 2

RE: hm?
by Meor on Tue 24th Apr 2012 20:33 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: hm?
by Valhalla on Tue 24th Apr 2012 23:59 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 Parent Score: 2