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 515154
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: hm?
by galvanash on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 05:49 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 Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 11:59 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 Parent Score: 7

RE[5]: hm?
by Beta on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 07:34 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: hm?
by lucas_maximus on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 09:19 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: hm?
by Neolander on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 10:21 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 Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: hm?
by Valhalla on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:04 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 Parent Score: 6

RE[5]: hm?
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 02:03 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: hm?
by lucas_maximus on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 09:22 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:18 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: hm?
by BluenoseJake on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 23:48 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: hm?
by lemur2 on Tue 24th Apr 2012 00:39 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: hm?
by Kivada on Tue 24th Apr 2012 07:53 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 Parent Score: 2