Comment by drdaeman | Hacker News Reader

Comment by drdaeman | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> GPL ( even LGPL) are dev-unfriendly licences and restrict devs freedom.

I concur it's the very contrary.

When I (an end user, somewhat skilled in software development) obtain a GPL-licensed piece of software, I'm granted the freedoms to modify it and distribute my modifications. Or hire someone to do so. Or whatever. The only thing I'm asked is to grant others the same freedoms I enjoy myself, if I'd to distribute the software further.

When I obtain a proprietary piece of software, I can either curse my way through reverse-engineering (as far as it's legal in my juristdiction) or wait until the proprietors would do something. That said, I'm basically powerless.

When I obtain a BSD or MIT-licensed piece of software, it depends on the good will of the developers whenever they provide me with the source code (and license grants) or not. If they do, my options roughly match the GPL case - I'm granted the four essential freedoms. If they don't, then it's no different from the case that I just got a proprietary blob. So, we're basically relying on everyone's good will - but given so, GPL doesn't hinder the experience of those who're sharing anyway, and simply excludes those who don't want to respect their users with "if you don't want others to use your code, then don't use my code - write your own" attitude.

I can't call "unfriendly" asking to respect another developer's will to keep their code free for everyone. Yes, the licensing makes their code unfit for the purposes of developing proprietary software, but being unfit is not unfriendly.

> When I (an end user, somewhat skilled in software development) obtain a GPL-licensed piece of software, I'm granted the freedoms to modify it and distribute my modifications. Or hire someone to do so. Or whatever. The only thing I'm asked is to grant others the same freedoms I enjoy myself, if I'd to distribute the software further.

> I can't call "unfriendly" asking to respect another developer's will to keep their code free for everyone. Yes, the licensing makes their code unfit for the purposes of developing proprietary software, but being unfit is not unfriendly.

We are arguing semantics here. The point is, a dev cannot make use of GPL software in closed src. GPL software has a VERY BIG cost/restriciton and it will most likely outweigh open sourceness where as Proprietary/MIT/BSD does not require every confidential intellectual property it touches to be made public.

> When I obtain a proprietary piece of software, I can either curse my way through reverse-engineering (as far as it's legal in my juristdiction) or wait until the proprietors would do something. That said, I'm basically powerless.

Proprietary software can be open source. Beside we are not talking about open source here. We are talking about viral nature of GPL.

> When I obtain a BSD or MIT-licensed piece of software, it depends on the good will of the developers whenever they provide me with the source code (and license grants) or not.

BSD/MIT automatically implies open source.

> If they do, my options roughly match the GPL case

Except the big restriction.

> GPL doesn't hinder the experience of those who're sharing anyway, and simply excludes those who don't want to respect their users with "if you don't want others to use your code, then don't use my code - write your own" attitude.

This is fine attitude to have if you are the only contributing. But most open source contributors do not care. They rather contribute than waste their time in flame wars. Case in point: GPL/share-alike adoption has been in steady decline.

All GPL does is stop devs from using it rather than create more open source softwares as GPL creaters hoped. You donate open source not demand it. But its seems GPL creaters missed that point.

> The point is, a dev cannot make use of GPL software in closed src.

Yes. That's the very idea of GPL. One's either accepting it and gets what it grants, or not.

> BSD/MIT automatically implies open source.

Ok, I simplified the wording and the meaning was lost. Let me fix it. I meant, I got a binary but that binary was produced from a BSD/MIT/Apache/whatever-licensed source code. If that source isn't available to me (like on the almost every single Android phone we have out there), I'm basically powerless.

> Proprietary software can be open source.

This is certainly wrong. Unless you're not using OSI definition of open source, but something of your own. Or if we mean something different under the term "proprietary".

> Case in point: GPL/share-alike adoption has been in steady decline.

Not surprising. GPL had lost, you're totally right on this.

It was predicted long ago - as most users don't possess any engineering skills, they don't exercise their freedoms to access the source code, modify it and distribute the modifications. The freedom to distribute the original software lost it to the unauthorized distribution ("piracy") and freemium-type software. Users don't care (actually IIRC it was shown that they tend to cope with whatever inconvenience they find, rather than try to fix it - that's also how privacy wars were lost), and developers find it that proprietary software has a well-known business models to bring profits, while free software requires to tread carefully.

Yet, it's wrong that "all it does is stop devs from using it". The word "all" is surely incorrect. It does stop some devs from using it - two groups, actully: a) those who want to develop proprietary software and b) those who just can't stand it for any personal reasons. But that's not all it does - I've mentioned what it also does above.

> Ok, I simplified the wording and the meaning was lost. Let me fix it. I meant, I got a binary but that binary was produced from a BSD/MIT/Apache/whatever-licensed source code. If that source isn't available to me (like on the almost every single Android phone we have out there), I'm basically powerless.

The BSD/MIT is the agreement between original devs and binary provider. There is no BSD/MIT between binary provider and you. If all the company is giving you binary but not source I dont think there can be BSD/MIT. So if someone gives you something labeled as BSD/MIT its going to be open source with no string attached.

> This is certainly wrong. Unless you're not using OSI definition of open source, but something of your own. Or if we mean something different under the term "proprietary".

It appears I am using my definiton for open source. To me open source means something whose source files are available.

So proprietary can come with sources which is likely for dev centric software.

> It was predicted long ago - as most users don't possess any engineering skills, they don't exercise their freedoms to access the source code, modify it and distribute the modifications. The freedom to distribute the original software lost it to the unauthorized distribution ("piracy") and freemium-type software. Users don't care (actually IIRC it was shown that they tend to cope with whatever inconvenience they find, rather than try to fix it - that's also how privacy wars were lost), and developers find it that proprietary software has a well-known business models to bring profits, while free software requires to tread carefully.

I agree GPL is user-friendly but it is so at the cost of dev-unfriendliness.

> Yet, it's wrong that "all it does is stop devs from using it". The word "all" is surely incorrect. It does stop some devs from using it - two groups, actully: a) those who want to develop proprietary software and b) those who just can't stand it for any personal reasons. But that's not all it does - I've mentioned what it also does above.

We are on HN so almost all devs are people who develop proprietary softwares. Even HN aside, all most all software development is proprietary. Hence the trend.

In my ideal world open source development works like this. We come togther, do our part while asking nothing in return and solve a common problem. Thats it. No strings or condition or anything.

It seems you've created your own definitions for both "open source" and "free software" in order to exclude copyleft from both categories and allow proprietary software to be included in both categories. Both of these terms have definitions going back decades by now which contradict yours; in the open source case, one of the reasons for starting to using the term in the first place was to avoid possible misconceptions or misunderstandings of what "free software" referred to!

Definiton I am using is common sense. OSI one is overly complex for example it has point "5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups".

> It seems you've created your own definitions for both "open source" and "free software" in order to exclude copyleft from both categories

Copyleft is not a requirement for open source or OSI Open Source. It is for FSF Free Software though.

I am aware of how "free software" can be misinterpreted. Thats why I havnt used it. But allow me to explain whats wrong with FSF definition. The word free implies unrestricted freedom like MIT/Public Domain which is true for users but not devs (proprietary devs to be specific). Nothing wrong with intention of this perticular definiton. But choice of the word is misleading. "republic software" may be ? Also note both are lawyers definitons.

Just curious what would you label something whose source you can view and/or modify for personal use ? Google says open source.

All this definition debate aside, last 5 posts have been about dev unfriendly restrictions of GPL/copyleft/share-alike. Free software was not mentioned at all. Only once[1] I mention open source which is to illustrate the point that proprietary does not necessarily mean you cannot view the source and cannot modify for personal use. Proprietary certainly does not come with same big restrictions as GPL. For a dev,

MIT/BSD > Proprietary with source > Proprietary >>> GPL.

> Both of these terms have definitions going back decades by now which contradict yours; in the open source case, one of the reasons for starting to using the term in the first place was to avoid possible misconceptions or misunderstandings of what "free software" referred to!

Yes both have been standardized but I doubt the actual adoption.

[1] Okay I have used it more than once. But every other usage works with either definitons.

> Proprietary certainly does not come with same big restrictions as GPL.

Have you actually read the EULAs on proprietary software?

The qualifier to note is "same" not "big restrictions".

No sane developer agreement[1] would require the modification/usage and all other associated confidential IPs to be disclosed. Or it would suffer heavy market share just like GPL. Ofcourse this does not mean such proprietary softwares does not exist but they would be abandoned once another competing product without such restrictions comes to market, just like GPL.

[1] Or even EULAs if the software is likely to be used as building block such as Photoshop/Unity etc.

[2] I am assuming here. I would like to know if such softwares exist.

I meant the EULAs on end user software. This perfectly illustrates how completely people miss the point of the GPL.

The GPL is intended to promote the freedoms of the end users of software. It is not really that concerned with developers as a special category of users. People already understand all the points you are making about developer freedom being more important that user freedom and either: (1) agree with you or, (2) disagree. If you don't like it just don't use it on your own work and use liberally licensed libraries in your own projects, don't complain on the internet about how other people choose to treat their own IP.

Also your definitions are contrary to the generally accepted and fairly clearly defined ones which will just lead to confusion for you and people you interact with. Maybe it would be easier to just use the right words rather than fighting to re-define them?

I dont know where I made you think that I misunderstand the intentions of GPL.

> The GPL is intended to promote the freedoms of the end users of software. It is not really that concerned with developers as a special category of users. People already understand all the points you are making about developer freedom being more important that user freedom and either: (1) agree with you or, (2) disagree.

You twice brought users into the discussion but its about effect of GPL on devs.

> If you don't like it just don't use it on your own work and use liberally licensed libraries in your own projects, don't complain on the internet about how other people choose to treat their own IP.

I am not complaining. I am convincing that GPL is dev-unfreindly. That is convincing devs to stay away from GPL not dictacting how they should licence their own softwares.

I am also sad GPL people have made great massively collabrated projects (where most contributers do not even realize what restrictions they are imposing, even on themselves) like OpenStreetMap canserous. I will be very happy when this ideaology dies.

> Also your definitions are contrary to the generally accepted and fairly clearly defined ones which will just lead to confusion for you and people you interact with. Maybe it would be easier to just use the right words rather than fighting to re-define them?

Okey now you are just nitpicking. There is only one place where I can be misunderstood, and I have clarified it twice.

OK so you are advocating a POV rather than discussing an issue.

Just a word of advice for your future advocacy endeavours. The GPL is about users. Devs aren't special according to its proponents. You will need to appreciate the fact that the GPL is about user freedom in order to convince them.

So whats the issue ? Whether one should pick GPL for his own software. ANSWER: NO.

Most worthwhile open source contributions are paid by commercial companies. And if given a choice they will spend their money in contributing to BSD/MIT softwares rather than GPL. By picking GPL you would be decreasing potential contributions.

We havnt even discussed the elephent in the room. How your project can turn into legal battle ground, divide the community and fill the maillist and issue tracker with nonsense rather than actual work. Or how *GPL licence is so complex and still there is no common consensus on its interpretation. Or how little it is tested in courts and even that in just two countries. Or what GPLv4 turned out to be and would it recieve the same fate as GPLv3.

I shouldn't be getting drawn into this but here goes.

The issue is freedom and IP rights.

Maybe you are missing some fundamental understanding about IP rights. If person A (might be an individual or a company) writes some software it is person A's IP with person A's copyright and they have the right to choose its licence according to their own preferences. If person B writes some other software they can want to use person A's library, however, person B has no fundamental right to use person A's IP. This right can only be derived from person A's permission which is often supplied for software in the form of a licence.

Some people like the idea of their software never ending up in a proprietary product so they choose the GPL. Others don't care so they choose liberal licences. Others want to make a dollar every time someone else uses their software so they choose proprietary licences. Other don't care about non-commercial usage but want to make a dollar every time someone else makes a dollar using their IP - they might choose dual AGPL+proprietary. Others might like to licence only for use in space/underwater/1000m above sea level/on a train again their choice not mine or yours. Even Richard Stallman recommends more liberal licences in some scenarios and actually ffmpeg might class as one of those (analogous to ogg vorbis).

In summary: In the current world people are free to choose how other people use their IP.

> We havnt even discussed the elephent in the room. How your project can turn into legal battle ground, divide the community and fill the maillist and issue tracker with nonsense rather than actual work. Or how *GPL licence is so complex and still there is no common consensus on its interpretation. Or how little it is tested in courts and even that in just two countries. Or what GPLv4 turned out to be and would it recieve the same fate as GPLv3.

With the state of software patents any project under any licence can turn into a legal battle ground.

> Just curious what would you label something whose source you can view and/or modify for personal use ? Google says open source.

I'd probably call it "viewable source", "source code", "software with source code", or "software with published source code".

But we're talking about LGPL, not GPL.

> Proprietary/MIT/BSD does not require every confidential intellectual property it touches to be made public.

A lot of proprietary libraries you can license have very onerous licensing terms; certainly much longer and more complex than the LGPL. E.g. the notice requirements that got MediaCoder into trouble are often exactly the same (that's why so many programs have "contains an implementation of the LZW algorithm" or "uses Bink video technology" or "built with the Unreal engine" or that Creative sound codec I've forgotten the name of, on their splash screens and in their about boxes). Heck, the advertising clause in the original (4-clause) BSD license is much more onerous than anything in the LGPL. Sure, the makers of those libraries don't say "we will give you free legal advice but only if you make your whole program open-source" - but that's because they won't offer you free legal advice at all, they expect you to understand and comply with the license you have from them. And you will often have to e.g. give them access to perform audits so that they can confirm you're complying with the license (and paying royalties correctly, if you're using a library you pay per-use royalties for).

The LGPL is less permissive than the MIT license, sure. But it's absurd to claim it's somehow less open source or more restricted than typical proprietary library licenses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com