Comment by douche
9 years ago
If you're trying to write commercial software and make money off of it, the GPL is a cancer.
MIT or the MS-PL is much more practical.
9 years ago
If you're trying to write commercial software and make money off of it, the GPL is a cancer.
MIT or the MS-PL is much more practical.
To translate
if you are attempting to exploit other peoples code with out giving anything back to the people that created the code then GPL is a cancer
>MIT or the MS-PL is much more practical.
This depends on the project
I normally license my libraries, code I intend to be included in other software under BSD or MIT, but full developed software that is intended to be used as is gets GPL.
>if you are attempting to exploit other peoples code with out giving anything back to the people that created the code then GPL is a cancer
That's bullshit - GPL requires you to open source your derived work as well - which plenty of people have a problem with commercially - it doesn't mean you don't want to contribute anything (quoting you) back.
Even with the LGPL there are scenarios where sharing your code is not an option because of real world constraints (eg. NDAs), for example you need to modify the LGPL code to port to a closed platform. That doesn't mean you can't contribute back other improvements, but anything platform specific can't be released and therefore you can't comply with LGPL.
In general GPL creates a lot of problems to which GPL supporters just plug their ears and mantra "if you were truly free you wouldn't have those problems". Liberal licenses remove those problems and incentives to share back are there without the license requirement, you get your stuff maintained in the mainline and don't have to rebase on every update and reduce conflicts further down the development. LLVM is an excellent example of this where even traditionally closed companies OSS stuff because it's such a chore to keep up with latest. An example of a project being choked by GPL is Blender - a tool that has great potential to be a fully featured OSS 3D authoring package is struggling to fund developers because it can only sustain itself from government grants - nobody is interested in investing in it commercially because of the GPL. If it allowed for commercial plugins the OSS core would undoubtedly see significant contributions from those developers as well.
> In general GPL creates a lot of problems to which GPL supporters just plug their ears and mantra "if you were truly free you wouldn't have those problems".
I'm not plugging my ears. I recognize it, and it's terribly unfortunate that one would ever be in such a situation, but the idea there is that the GPL would encourage the liberation of other code, and other platforms. Here's an example:
Now, you're talking about a broader issue than liberating a single program. But enough useful GPL'd software might sway larger systems.
Otherwise, if modifying free software and in doing so making your modified program proprietary means that it can't be used at all, then that is the intent.
7 replies →
GPL was never intended for commercial use, in fact it was meant in a minor way to deter the method of business to simply acquire work and to redistribute it as their own through minor changes. Its major effect was for the sharing of code on a free and OSS code base made by the freetime of many, many developers and hobbyists.
Even if Microsoft, big business and ivy league succeed in subverting the software architecture and environment built on the GPL license, hobbyists and developers will still continue developing on it (GPL code) on their free time.
(tldr; commercialization was never a real priority for GPL licensed software. it was the continued community sharing of works through licensed protected open source.)
edit: some developers are just in it for the love of money like m$, others are just in it for love of the craft.
I had considered doing the same thing, but I think pragmatically I'm never going to be able to build a "support" business around my libraries. Hell, I'm not even really interested in that type of business. I've spent most of my career as a consultant, i.e. mostly getting treated like a cost center, so it's not a difficult stretch to see that too much focus on the code as a product unto itself will lead to the same results.
My only chance of getting out of that is probably building my own products and partnering with a group of people who are good at marketing. I think, in large part, selling copies of software is a dead end business. There are some contrary examples, but I think they probably more prove the rule. Does anyone pay for Sublime Text for any reason other than "to support the developers" (i.e. not "because I need this software")? Video games have to be released on a regular schedule. Adobe has all the image processing patents. I think in all cases, people are buying something other than a literal copy of the software. So why not just sell that other thing directly and skip the noise?
On the other hand, assuming I end up making the libraries any good, someone else with a business of supporting software and the mercenary nature of refusing to help people with problems who don't have any money to pay, could probably snipe me in my own software.
So with that in mind, libraries I write always come out under the full GPL-3.0. Nobody deserves to close their use of my code. It has turned some people off (and I think that has more to do with their misunderstanding of what the GPL is practically about than any ostensible flaws in the GPL), but they can go start their own VR framework project for all I care.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. How many people would have used jQuery, if it was GPL? Full-on GPL taints your software, such that you have to be extremely careful not to use any libraries that are GPL'd if you want to release it under any other sort of license. Sure, you can get exemptions, but can you imagine the clusterfuck if, say, the NPM community defaulted to using GPL? Trying to trace back and make arrangements with the owners of thousands of tiny libraries would be insane.
You are taking an incredibly harsh (and coming across as almost vengeful) position on the GPL advocating a position that misses the point of the GPL.
Software that chooses a copyleft license like the GPL cares for freedom more than broad adoption of their software. I would never want you to help you create non-free software---that's antithetical to everything I stand for. Many feel that way.
You say "trace back and make arrangements with the owners of thousands"---why should you? Why would we want you to do that? Why would we have used the GPL to begin with? I would consider that to be an incredible situation! All these tiny libraries on NPM under the GPL that make it virtually impossible to develop proprietary software because of the infeasibility of working out deals with all the authors---some of which will never agree? That is freedom at its finest! That would be a huge success!
It's great that software like jQuery has had the success that it has. It shares a different philosophy. I don't call that philosophy a "cancer", even though it results in what I consider the worst possible outcome: proprietary software, and often SaaSS at that, which robs freedoms even more.
Please be respectful of others' philosophies. The GPL is the embodiment of ideals and the free software movement---it's more than a license.
4 replies →
> Full-on GPL taints your software, such that you have to be extremely careful not to use any libraries that are GPL'd if you want to release it under any other sort of license.
Why would you want to release under any other sort of license? Why do you wish to restrict your users' right to use, modify & share code?
> can you imagine the clusterfuck if, say, the NPM community defaulted to using GPL
That sounds wonderful: an entire ecosystem of free software.
9 replies →
If you're a lone developer or small team and you're releasing your code under anything other than a strong copyleft license, you're leaving yourself open to the Joyents of the world to abscond with what you've made and build their business with nothing more than an attaboy to you. I would much rather nobody made money off of my code than somebody else while I still struggle. At least the Mozillas and Googles of the world have the decent politeness to just completely ignore your open source project, no matter how long its been out and how new they are to that particular field, to boulder through and make their own thing.
2 replies →
"If you are a software repository, proprietary license is toxic waste."
"If you write software, proprietary content is a time bomb waiting to kill everyone involved."
Does this kind of language really help anyone? Do you want to be called a toxic waste distributor? Do you like to plant bombs in peoples projects, killing them?
"Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible-just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on."
from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
You can't practically charge for distribution though - your sell it to one person, and they'll upload it to an FTP archive server.
Sure---that's sharing with your friends and neighbors, and that's a fundamental freedom.
But many/most will follow the project directly. You can offer the source code to build yourself , or provide a convenient binary/installer for those who either don't want to or can't (for example).
This is especially prevalent for mobile OS's, where building is an unfamiliar task or PITA for many, even hackers.
Would I personally? No. But I respect that decision.
Your inability to figure out a competent business model that also respects the rights of users is not the user's problem. You have no right to lock someone's computer down, to prevent them from using the copy of the software that you sold them, and the only way to guarantee that is to require the source to be open.
Look, it probably won't matter anyway. Probably nobody is going to use your software.
The same is true of literally every piece of software ever distributed regardless of license.
1 reply →