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 515252
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 4

RE[8]: hm?
by galvanash on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 20:45 in reply to "RE[7]: hm?"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

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?


It is a forced choice - that is all I'm saying. You are forcing the user to make that choice by licensing with the GPL. How can anyone argue this? This "choice" is simply not necessary with BSD code.

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.

????


No. What you just wrote is it is worded strangely and in reverse. The BSD doesn't allow people to be selfish - other people's behavior is simply irrelevant to its conditions. It IS in fact unselfish to give things away without preconditions...

On the other hand - I never said that an author who uses the GPL is selfish - what I said was that it forces those who choose to agree to it to act unselfishly whether they like it or not.

Each license has its place. I'm not opposed to GPL use - I'm opposed to GPL zealots and their dogma. If you want to force reciprocity the GPL is great - it's all the pseudo-religious baggage that comes with it that frustrates me... It's just a f*cking software license - it is not the path to enlightenment and using some other license like the BSD is not going to make Jesus cry...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: hm?
by Valhalla on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 21:42 in reply to "RE[8]: hm?"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


It is a forced choice - that is all I'm saying.

No it's a condition for use, you choose to accept that condition or not by choosing to use GPL licenced code or not. Noone is forcing you to use GPL licenced code. If I ask to borrow your car and you say sure I can borrow it, as long as I fill up the gas afterwards, am I being placed under what you describe as a forced choice then? Are you then one of those selfish people?

Hence the BSD license is for unselfish people.

So where do you draw the line?, BSD forces you to keep the copyright attribution intact, is that not at all selfish or is forced copyright attribution it just less selfish than forcing you to release source code modifications when you distribute GPL derived code? By your measure shouldn't the only unselfish option be public domain?

On the other hand - I never said that an author who uses the GPL is selfish - what I said was that it forces those who choose to agree to it to act unselfishly whether they like it or not.

Wait, you said GPL is for selfish people, now you are saying that an author who uses the GPL isn't selfish? Then who are these selfish people whom GPL is for?

The BSD doesn't allow people to be selfish

It certainly does, if you argue that GPL forces people to be unselfish by releasing the code, then obviously BSD allows people to be selfish and not release the code.

- I'm opposed to GPL zealots and their dogma. If you want to force reciprocity the GPL is great - it's all the pseudo-religious baggage that comes with it that frustrates me...

What pseudo-religious baggage? It's funny that all I ever see about religion and licences are GPL detractors who wants to add religious overtones to GPL. I can only think this has to do with Stallman's views on software ethics, but then again ethics is not religion. It's about morals and a sense of right and wrong, you don't need to believe in a fictional diety to have morals or a sense of right and wrong.

And you are the only one who has brought up GPL and religion in this thread as far as I can see, go figure.

Also you are the one arguing licences on the basis of selfishness and unselfishness which are anything but technical terms.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 23:16 in reply to "RE[8]: hm?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"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?


It is a forced choice - that is all I'm saying. You are forcing the user to make that choice by licensing with the GPL. How can anyone argue this?
"

You are not forcing the user to use the code! If someone chooses to use the code, they are free to look at the license BEFORE they use it! If they don't like the license, they are FREE to NOT use the code!

Each license has its place. I'm not opposed to GPL use - I'm opposed to GPL zealots and their dogma. If you want to force reciprocity the GPL is great - it's all the pseudo-religious baggage that comes with it that frustrates me... It's just a f*cking software license - it is not the path to enlightenment and using some other license like the BSD is not going to make Jesus cry...


You don't like religious zealotry on the part of GPL supporters, so you attack the GPL on stupidly reasoned grounds, rather than those specific people?

Yeah, that's logical...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: hm?
by demetrioussharpe on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 22:37 in reply to "RE[7]: hm?"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

"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.

????
"

This argument is retarded & I'll tell you why. Both of you are saying that your license of favor is unselfish while the other one's license of favor is selfish. However, both of you are correct. How can you both be correct? Because for one license, the statement is true for original developers. For the other license, the statement is true for developers who're code re-users. I'll leave it to you to figure which is which.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: hm?
by galvanash on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 22:52 in reply to "RE[8]: hm?"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

I already know that... It is everyone misreading my post that seems to be confused. That was the ENTIRE point of my post in the first place - I guess it just want over some peoples head.

Anyway, I give up.

Reply Parent Score: 2