“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Linux, like all things that grow often are, was smaller in the past.
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
).
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.
So what?
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.
The BSD mascot is a cartoon daemon. Always has a smile on his face.
So you get abused knowingly? That’s as bad, if not worse, as getting abused unknowingly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Butthurt, lol. You obviously have some intention with your post other than rational discussion. Maybe you are some crowd from #mentalissues. I don`t know.
Drive-by postings, making mindless remarks, without any reasonable argumentation seems to plague the internet, also sites that once was special-interest high-intelligence groups. We clearly see it here. Lamers are ruining internet-communication, and something should be done about it. Maybe some kind of attitude-shaping in school. But that is another discussion entirely.
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
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.
It’s not. Then again, I didn’t even remotely suggest that it was.
But of course you knew that already.
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
Riiiight. Go ahead, make even less sense, I dare you.
Oh the irony.
hehe
I literally LOL’ed at your “tree of knowledge of good and evil” reference. lol
Actually, the Bible does not call the fruit an apple, something it most likely wasn’t. Apple Inc. is evil in its own right.
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)
Actually if you were interested to learn, I have commented on the Apple naming earlier.
I do however doubt that most people here are gonna see the difference between my post, and moaning on a porn site, but hey, here is the link. Each get out of it, what the resolution of his perception allows.
http://www.osnews.com/thread?505637
If you do posess sense, you will see that others in this thread aswell, as is common on Osnews, could use an extreme cleansing of trash on their perception.
Edited 2012-04-22 12:32 UTC
Please give me the ability to vote -1 funny or +1 sad. Thanks.
You don’t need to contribute back in original project when using GPL (as long as program source is available to users).
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.
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
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.
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.
That is a choice, do you know what a choice is?
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.
????
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.
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…
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
Condition for use = forced choice.
I never said anyone forces you to use GPL code. I said the license forces you to reciprocate if you want to use the code. A condition for use is a forced choice – the choice only exists because the license stipulates it…
Please go back and read all my posts and then paste in your reply the part where I said the GPL is for selfish people. You can’t because I didn’t.
This whole argument is stupid (as another poster has already remarked) – you are simply misunderstanding what I said.
I take it back – all of it – I was just trying to make an admittedly imperfect analogy in the hopes that it would bring some clarity into the discussion for some people. Please let it go.
And the license only stipulates it if you choose to use the code in the first place!
You have the choice of NOT USING THE CODE, and in that case, the license can’t force you to abide by its conditions! There is no force.
If you enter a contract, you agree to the terms and conditions in that contract whether you like it or not (as long as you weren’t FORCED to sign the contract, or were tricked into it). Contractual agreement is NOT FORCE if you DON’T SIGN IT.
The forced sharing only exist if you were forced to use GPL code. If you choose to use GPL code, you accept the conditions BEFORE doing so. Therefore, the sharing is a CHOICE dependent on the initial CHOICE of using the GPL code.
Read what I said again… Are you saying that I get to agree to the stipulations of the license AFTER I modify and distribute the code? No? Then the license doesn’t “only” stipulate things if you choose to use the code – it stipulates things before you use the code – it is a precondition.
If the code was not licensed under the GPL, well then the stipulation doesn’t exist does it? I.e. as a user I no longer have to make the choice as to whether I want to be selfish or not – it is not a precondition any longer. I am free to be a selfish bastard if choose to…
It is therefore a forced choice, the license creates it. Without the license I don’t have to make the choice in order to use the code.
Look, I really don’t want this to degenerate into a flame war – I get what you are saying – I’m not even arguing against any of it. All I’m trying to do is explain what I meant (and I admit it was worded badly in the first place).
A precondition that doesn’t take effect until you START USING THE CODE. Because the preconditions are about what you are allowed to do WITH THE CODE.
If you know the code is licensed GPL and you use the code, you AGREE to abide by the preconditions. That is not “force”. It’s a contract.
You are not forced to only choose GPL code BEFORE YOU USE ANY CODE, therefore, the preconditions aren’t “force”.
That is absurd. Then every contract, including verbal agreements, are a forced choice. Without a contract, including verbal agreements, you don’t have to abide by the conditions.
If you want to live, you have to breathe. This is a precondition that applies before you enter the contract known as life. So according to your logic, we are FORCED to breathe.
Ill try one more time… The choice I am talking about is whether or not you want to reciprocate – NOT whether or not you want to USE the code. I.e. whether or not you want to act selfishly.
The GPL forces the user to make that choice – the BSD does not. You can agree to the terms of the BSD and go right along being a selfish bastard – the license does not care.
I have said this about eight times in different ways and so far only one other person seems to get it. I know the GPL doesn’t force the user to do anything – they can simply not use the code. But if they want to use the code, the user is forced (required, compelled, mandated, whatever damn word will make you happy) to to reciprocate changes (i.e. act unselfishly).
The reciprocation clause only has EFFECT if you USE the code in the way prescribed. So like it or not, the choice of reciprocation is DEPENDENT ON the choice of using the code (in the way prescribed).
The choice of reciprocation exists IN EFFECT ONLY when you choose to use the code in the way prescribed. That is not force.
Your definition of force is simply too broad to have any meaning.
By your logic, by using BSD code, I am “forced” to forego the option of demanding that code changes be given back.
If I argued that to you, you’d be right to say that’s immensely stupid. But that is what your logic is precisely arguing.
You can twist anything to mean force.
Let’s stick to a sane definition of force, like “against the will”. If you willingly use GPL code, you willingly accept the condition to reciprocate, because it is part of the GPL agreement. If you willingly accept the condition to reciprocate, you are not forced.
Here’s another way to put your argument:
You, for whatever reason, by Microsoft Office. The license says you are not allowed to put a torrent for it on The Pirate Bay. It’s a precondition of you using that software.
Do you get to agree to the “no piracy” stipulation AFTER you use the software? No? Then the license doesn’t “only” stipulate things if you choose to use the software – it stipulates things before you use the software – it is a precondition.
Do you understand how stupid that is? By your logic, Microsoft’s Office license is FORCING you to not pirate their software because the EULA comes up before you install it, and you can’t change your mind after you agree to the EULA.
* Whether you believe in EULAs or not is inconsequential to the fact that it’s simply stupid to argue it forces you.
Ok. Try this…
Macrosift is a company resulting from a corporate split at Microsoft. In the terms of the split they legally have the right to release a fork of Microsoft Office under their own terms.
They now offer a similar product called Macrosift Office, but they do not have the “no torrents on piratebay” clause in their license…
Ah.. Now I can get my software and am no longer forced to agree to not being a dirty scalawag pirate…
See what I’m saying now?
Yes, I see what you’re saying, which is why I’m saying your argument is stupid.
You basically argue that a contract is force. Well done on completely stripping force (and contract) of any meaning.
Its not a contract, its a license… But whatever. I wasn’t trying to strip anything of meaning – just trying to illustrate the comparison of the two licenses from a different point of view. Sorry if I hit a nerve – I really wasn’t intending to.
I’m trying really hard to be friendly since the last time we debated something it got heated and out of hand. I’d appreciate it if you refrained from the name calling in the future and Ill do the same.
You aren’t being at all friendly if you are trying to insist that the GPL forces someone to do anything.
Firstly, the GPL is not law. It carries no force whatsoever. Copyright law is the law, and it is copyright law which has all the force associated with it.
The GPL is a license. It is not even a contract, it is purely a license.
https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=define%…
license: Noun: A permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade.
In the case of the GPL license for source code, the “authority” is the copyright holder, initially the person who wrote the code in question. This person retains that authority in respect of that code.
The permissions granted by the GPL (which would normally be withheld under copyright law) are unconditional permission to use (as in run) the code, to study it, copy it and even modify it for personal use, and also permission to redistribute the code to others provided that the same permissions and conditions are passed on to those recipients.
One even doesn’t have to “agree” to the GPL, you are granted those conditional and unconditional permissions regardless of what you do.
There is no “force” involved here whatsoever.
Edited 2012-04-23 02:18 UTC
Don’t be silly, of course it does. If you create a derivative work you have to abide by the license and the license enforces certain conditions, such as making the source of your derivative work available. There’s no point in arguing this.
The question is if you find those conditions to be
acceptable or not.
The license, be it BSD or GPL, really has no relevance to what you can and can not do if you’re just using the program.
How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? Can we both stipulate that I already know that? I have said it myself repeatedly in trying to explain this…
Use whatever word you want to use – the license has a clause in it that makes it unlawful to use (as in alter) and distribute a binary incorporating those alterations to other people without reciprocating your changes to others in the form of source code. You are required to reciprocate or you don’t get to use the code in this way (i.e. the license is revoked).
A normal everyday person reading this would more than likely reword it into a much simpler statement – the license forces you to act unselfishly. The “if you agree to comply” part is implied – it is a license after all – you have to actually agree to the terms and take what it is offering before it applies to you.
How is rewording the first paragraph into the simple sentence in the 2nd one being unfriendly? Yes, it does remove some of the nuances – I get that. But I really do not at all get what you are so offended about.
If you want to be picky I don’t at all agree with your definition of force – “against ones will” is certainly a valid use but it isn’t the only one. The more common meaning of the word as a noun is simply “power to influence, affect, or control”. Yes, technically it is copyright law that carries the force, but again that is just semantics – the GPL is in fact a license based in copyright law. Your just arguing for the sake of arguing…
Um… I know that… That is kind of why I corrected you when you brought up contracts. I never used the word contract – you brought that word into this discussion.
There we go again, back to semantics. It was a poor choice of word – but it doesn’t invalidate the intent of my post – which again was to show a distinction between the two licenses at a baser level.
I’m starting to think that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
No I didn’t, I jumped in the middle. Serves me right I guess.
You still are ignoring the considerable body of software that is dual-licensed. One can either use it collaboratively under the GPL, add ones own code and re-distribute the derived work under the GPL, OR one can get a separate commercial license for the exact same code, add ones own code and re-distribute the derived work commercially.
Since there are two distinct options, you are most definitely not forced to do either one.
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!
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…
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.
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.
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.
Oh I give up… This whole thread has gone off the rails more or less because I picked too strong and word and bolded it. How about this:
The BSD license is for the unselfish. The GPL license is for ensuring that other people act unselfishly.
Is this better? That is all I was trying to say.
Not solely, selfless contributors, and either or users.
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.
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.
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.
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.
** sigh **
I was not talking about GPL or BSD at all. FFS.
I am not saying either stance is right or wrong.
I merely said it as something to think about, that is why I put the question mark at the end of the post.
But no … instead we just have vitriol.
And yet, the article is. So why can’t I bring this back to being about GPL and BSD and how your rhetorical question relates to it?
Yes, and I gave an answer and reasons for that answer. Is that not allowed?
Please point out anything I have said that was “vitriol”. I was not aware that giving a definite answer is now “vitriol”.
Because then it becomes a bsd vs gpl flame war.
I didn’t want an answer to the question, because there is no right or wrong answer.
The question you asked can only ever have one answer. “Should people be allowed to stipulate conditions in which their own code is released”. The answer can only be yes. I don’t see the problem or how it leads to a BSD vs GPL flame war. A person has the right to stipulate conditions their own code is used once released. If people don’t like it, they don’t use the code.
If people choose to release their work, whether it’s code or music, using BSD-like conditions, then they can. If people choose to release their work, whether it’s code or music, using GPL-like conditions, then they can also.
There simply is an answer. A person is allowed to stipulate what conditions their work is used under if they choose to do so. You can’t bloody well disallow it.
** sign **
Just another day at OSNEWS.
I am not just talking about code, I keep on saying that again and again and yet you ignore it.
It just a question about your personal point of view, when giving something to someone whether it is a pint of beer or a snippet of code. I deliberately left out the word code.
Some people think that God gave them life and think that they owe him something i.e. living their life in a particular way … they would probably answer that question very differently than I would.
As I said there is no right or wrong answer, it ultimately depends on someone’s personal ethics.
I really find it disconcerting that just taking a question into a more generic sphere needs this much explanation.
Oh really?
This is a direct quote from the very comment your replied to, with emphasis:
Do you have a problem understanding that “work” can mean code and many other types of work which is not code?
Do you have a problem understanding how my point applies to work OTHER THAN code, even though it uses the word code?
Do you understand that there is such a thing as “Creative Commons” which people can use to cover work which is not necessarily code?
Do you understand that copyright licensing applies to more than just code?
Do you understand the concept of sharing, with or without conditions, applies to more than just code?
As you can see, while I put the word code in my comment, I also put other words, which implies I was talking about the “giving” aspect in general, regardless of music, code, or beer.
But your question was not whether it is wrong to expect payback. Your question was whether it should be ALLOWED to stipulate conditions, on the condition that your work (which is NOT NECESSARILY CODE, BUT STILL APPLIES IN ANY CASE) is used.
Here’s a more generic example:
I have a mobile phone. You don’t. You need a mobile phone. I decide to lend you my phone indefinitely. Am I ALLOWED to tell you not to get a enormous bill at the end of the month? Of course I’m ALLOWED. Is it reasonable? Maybe, maybe not. But ALLOWED? YES.
Remember you own question.
I find it disconcerting that as soon as I include the word “code”, you suddenly can’t comprehend the fact that my point still included other forms of work, implicitly and explicitly.
I give up … this is boring and pointless.
I posed a ethical question, you don’t can’t grasp the concept that
1) The answer depends entirely on what you happen to believe in.
2) I didn’t expect and answer other than “well I suppose that is something to think about”.
I dunno what else to say really.
I still don’t understand your problem.
The question of whether someone is ALLOWED to stipulate conditions is not an open ended question. And I did think about it and gave you an answer.
I have a beer. You want that beer. I say “okay, but don’t drink it all and no backwash”. Your question was whether I’m even ALLOWED to STIPULATE “don’t drink it all and no backwash”, not whether it’s a good thing to say. There is no open endedness to “think about”. I’m simply ALLOWED to give you a condition on taking the beer I’m offering.
There simply is no ethical dilemma.
1) Being allowed to stipulate conditions is not dependent on what one believes. Even the most tyrannical dictatorship allows people to stipulate conditions.
2) It’s not my fault you didn’t expect an answer to an ill-conceived question.
See, you’re stipulating conditions to how your question should be answered (which according to you, is “never”). Whether I agree or disagree with your stipulation, can you even deny the fact that being ALLOWED to stipulate those conditions is automatic?
The only alternative to “ALLOWED” is “DISALLOWED”. If something is not “DISALLOWED” it is implicitly “ALLOWED”.
If you can’t DISALLOW stipulating conditions of use, then it is automatically ALLOWED.
It’s not difficult.
Nerds will be nerds.
It was hardly ill conceived.
It was a off the cuff ethical question which was trying to get the guy to think a little bit differently.
The problem my friend is that you have made a mountain out of a molehill.
Really?
You asked a question. I answered it.
But you were the one who didn’t like it. You basically said “you’re not supposed to answer it”. You kept banging on about how you didn’t use the word code, even though none of what I said is strictly limited to code, and therefore applies to things that are not-code as well.
Do you know what ISN’T making a mountain out of a molehill?
1) <asks a question>
2) <answers a question>
1) <silence, or “oh”, or “here’s why I disagree”>
But NOOO. Instead you’re all “you’re not supposed to answer it” and “you keep using a word I did not use FFS”.
Your question was simple. But YOU were the one who tried to make it an ethical dilemma when it wasn’t. That’s making a mountain out of an anthill.
And I thought it was just me you were being obtuse with. You really do argue just for the sake of arguing…
Before you get all bent out of shape I really don’t mean that to be an insult. It is difficult (to put it mildly) to debate a topic with you – but you certainly have a knack for making one re-think their argument.
Okay </sarcasm>
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
Then PLEASE just stop calling it free, alright? while RMS may be a big fan of newspeak (even going so far as to refuse interviews unless you speak HIS language HIS way) using newspeak to try to change reality is just wrong and any geek should be able to see that.
Let me put it THIS way: If I say to you “I will give you a “free” ride today but you MUST give ME a ride tomorrow” is that FREE? No it is not. For thousand of years free has had a clear and precise definition, free is just that, free of cost, restrictions, it is just that, free.
What the GPL is is a SHARING license, why is that word so shocking and offense? Sharing is a nice word, and is also quite clear and precise, I share with you and in return you share with me, see how that works?
So lets just be honest, okay? BSD is a free license, GPL is a sharing license, MSFT uses a restricted license. See how easy and clear that is? How even those that aren’t a part of FOSS would have ZERO trouble getting the gist? So lets just leave the newspeak head games for RMS and the crazy that compared the BSD Daemon to satanism and let us geeks just speak honestly, how about that?
The one word “free” in English actually has several meanings, there is not one single clear and precise definition as you claim. The meaning that is intended for the phrase Free Software is freedom, as in liberty, and not gratis, or zero cost. Free Software does indeed have a cost, almost in the sense you point out. The deal known as copyleft is actually this: “I will give you a ride today provided you do the same for others afterwards”.
It is all about collaboration. Collaboration requires both giving and taking by all parties. Taking and not giving is not collaboration, it is just taking. Collaboration is therefore not zero cost, it is not gratis.
For this reason, many people would prefer that it be called “Freedom Software” rather than “Free Software”. Unfortunately, no-one is in control of the English language, and no-one can control what everybody calls something.
Edited 2012-04-24 01:00 UTC
While you seem to expect “free” to mean basically pure altruism, don’t forget how that altruism evolved – it’s a reciprocal thing of a social animal (or, broader, of animals sharing related genes and their “greed” for a delayed reward)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 …).
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.
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.
And now they think they can stay loyal to their company by doing BSD.
Yeah code away, and let the company not even feed you, letting you die, and stagnate both progress for the company and yourself.
Gee, what a genious. And if you think Buddha has anything to do with such evil, you are even more stupid.
But yeah there is a lot of people online, who lack the critical thinking, and even attribute these things as if they were benevolent, when any such person would posess infinitely greater knowledge.
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.
Oh gee how much more accurate you were. If the editors now are from BeNews, you actually have the old BeOS mindset here. And making a point with 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”.
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.
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?
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.
They are not. Save for one who contributes 1 story every 3 – 6 months. So, I stand by calling you a moron.
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.
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.
Linux was going to conquer the desktop. Shit happens dude.
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?
Your incomprehensible passive/aggressive diatribes are not idiotic then? Wow, talk about pot calling the kettle black… seriously.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
You, sir, is an absolute riot.
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.
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
Ahhh. Now I remember you.
Fair enough – my “allergic reaction” comment back then was over the top and I apologize. Touché.
Simpler is often better.
This really has absolutely nothing to do with this.
Some say that the BSD/MIT license is more open than the GPL. Who does so many GPL project refuse to go completely open?
You do know that the GPL does not prevent this from happening either, right?
a) “the BSD logo” is not satan. b) are you trying to be funny?
When it comes to legally binding agreements, then it’s mostly not the case.
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.
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…
Who cares? You think most people starting BSD projects are in it for the money???
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Well that’s definitedly an argument for the BSD licence, the GPLv2 wasn’t too complex, but the GPLv3 is unreadable.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
“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.
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.
Quelle surprise! And right before that you claim it’s stupid to hate Microsoft…
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:
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.
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.
Seriously?
GPLv3: 5120 words.
Modified BSD license: 220 words.
I rest my case.
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.
AHHHH!!!! HE ISNT TALKING ABOUT WHICH IS BETTER, HE IS JUST SAYING GPL IS MORE COMPLEX!!!! AHHHHHHYOUFUCKERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Learned that long ago. The discussion is the same old shit anyway. Same old tired arguments.
WHAT’D YOU SAY ABOUT MY MOMMA!?
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.
….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?
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*
And here I was, thinking they are popular because they are actually good.
It’s funny that when we’re talking about Linux quantity equals quality but when we’re talking about Windows it doesn’t.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fair enough. I get your point now.
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…
If people in Africa could *eat* code, it would be our obligation to make all software public domain.
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.
That’s your choice and I applaud your generosity.
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.
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.
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.
>> “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.
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?
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.
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. 🙂
I blame the smurfs.
I blame the nazis 🙂
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)
Hey Thom, you need to up your standards. When you post a link to something as stupid as this:
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.
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
You might want to look “sarcasm” up, it really helps understand comments.
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
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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…
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.
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.
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