Hacker News Reader

Comment by foob | Hacker News Reader

Just so you know, GNOME stands for GNU Object Model Environment. Not that that negates your point, but I still disagree with you for other reasons. Firefox is in no way part of the operating system itself. I would argue that Bash and the core-utils on the other hand are. Also keep in mind that the GNU Project created the whole idea of a Free alternative to Unix and created the culture and licenses that made it possible. For example, Linux is even licensed under the GNU General Public License v2. They provided every part of the operating system except for the kernel (again the core-utils and bash but gcc, emacs, and screen are probably also worth mentioning). Linux as we know it would absolutely not exist if it weren't for the GNU Project. I see people disrespecting the FSF constantly and I just really don't understand why you would when you know how much they've done for Free software.

View on HN

GNU and the free software movement aren't going to die just because most people think GNU/Linux is a ridiculous thing to call an operating system.

The core of GNU's argument is that they need GNU/Linux so people will recognize the importance of the movement, but the manner of people participating in this naming campaign is completely counterproductive.

>the whole idea of a Free alternative to Unix

I don't mean to marginalize the gnu project, but there were already free -nixes out there. Starting over from scratch isn't much of an accomplishment other than the license...

>and created the culture and licenses that made it possible

The GPL has ultimately done more harm than good for open source. The only time proprietary software vendors are forced to release anything is when they accidentally mess up because they didn't understand what they were getting into. This happens rarely and when businesses get burnt, they're more apprehensive to do anything with opensource in the future. I know because I still see this happening today.

When people aren't scared of the codebase, they can start using it. If they can modify it without worrying about legal repercussions, they're not afraid to modify it. Sure they don't have to give back, but if you force them to they're not even going to make the modifications in the first place.

If someone wants to build something closed source, they're going to build something closed source even if it means re-inventing the wheel to avoid the GPL. I'd rather have the wheel be a BSD wheel, so even if product X will never be opensource, at least it will be built with good wheels. I'm a realist that knows closed software isn't going anywhere and at the end of the day I'd like all software to be as good as it can be.

> there were already free -nixes out there

Not true, the various "Free" BSDs came much later. As far as I know, BSD existed but wasn't Free. If it was already free, then RMS would probably not have launched the GNU project.

I think he still would have, because what he set out to create is a 100% copylefted system. It's in the manifesto:

> Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.

The FSF actively embraces non-copyleft or weak-copyleft licenses. The GPL3 was explicitly designed to be compatible with the Apache license. The Apache license has a weaker copyleft than GPL2.

They want to work with other free software, they accept "liberal" licenses, but they don't encourage using them. They even encourage GPL over LGPL.

In case anyone's wondering about the actual timeline:

September 1983: RMS announces the GNU project. (Work actually begins in January 1984.)

March 1987: first release of GCC.

June 1989: first release of bash.

May 1991: FSF announces that work on GNU Hurd (their own kernel) "has begun".

June 1991: first free-as-in-speech BSD release ("Net/2").

October 1991: first release of glibc.

September 1991: first release of Linux (0.01) -- not free-as-in-speech.

March 1992: first release of 386BSD (0.0). July 1992: release 0.1, much more usable.

April 1992: USL v BSDi lawsuit filed. (This was a big obstacle to early adoption of the BSDs.)

December 1992: first free-as-in-speech release of Linux (0.99).

April 1993: first official release of NetBSD (0.8).

November 1993: first official release of FreeBSD (1.0).

January 1994: USL v BSDi lawsuit settled.

April 1994: FSF announces that the Hurd boots (but doesn't do anything much else).

May 2011: still waiting for the first truly usable release of GNU Hurd. No one seems to think it's very likely that there will ever be one.

So ... when the GNU project was announced, there weren't any free Unixes of any sort out there. It's possible that GNU really did create the whole idea of a free alternative to Unix. But the first free Unixoid kernel that was actually released was a BSD, and the first free whole Unixoid OS that was actually released was a BSD.

>The GPL has ultimately done more harm than good for open source.

This claim seems to defy the simplest explanation given the historical success of linux, so I think you need to be a bit more rigorous in substantiating your argument.

I'll agree that strictly enforcing 'giving back' is an unnecessary imposition and cost for adopters when a) there are many similar substitutable goods b) open source has momentum: evidence exists that giving back can be positive and in the adopters' interest.

However, neither of those were the case in the era when the GPL was born. The GPL should at least be given credit for helping bootstrap the present state of open source.

It gets credit. In CREDITS and most articles that describe Linux.

Just look at the Wikipedia entry (an open and free project) for Linux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux

From paragraph 2: "The development of Linux is one of the most prominent examples of free and open source software collaboration; typically all the underlying source code can be used, freely modified, and redistributed, both commercially and non-commercially, by anyone under licenses such as the GNU General Public License."

The italicized portion links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open_source_software. GNU gets its mention there.

Also paragraph 2: "In 1983, Richard Stallman, longtime member of the hacker community at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, announced the GNU project, saying that he had become frustrated with the effects of the change in culture of the computer industry and its users.[8] Software development for the GNU operating system began in January 1984, and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) was founded in October 1985. An article outlining the project and its goals was published in March 1985 titled the GNU Manifesto. The manifesto also focused heavily on the philosophy of free software. He developed The Free Software Definition and the concept of "copyleft", designed to ensure software freedom for all."

These kinds of attribution are infinitely better than a "GNU/" tacked thoughtlessly on to a generic term.

The GPL has ultimately done more harm than good for open source

That's the point. The GPL is for free software.

Scared of what codebase? I'm more scared of proprietary software than anything because who knows wtf it's doing.

Proprietary doesn't mean secret. There are codebases that are made available to customers for inspection, under NDAs and with all copyrights "reserved" by the owner. Looking at code is not the primary benefit of open or free software.

I always urge developers to stay clear from those NDAs and codebases - they may taint your work forever.

Mind you, usually, the folks who offer to show you the code under NDAs are not nice guys.

Can the customer compile the source?

> This happens rarely and when businesses get burnt, they're more apprehensive to do anything with opensource in the future.

And why is that a bad thing? When they "accidentally" copy a random image on Google Image Search and publish it in a flyer, they get sued by the maker for copyright infringement, and they become more apprehensive to copy random images in the future. This is a good thing. Businesses need to learn that there are laws and that software is subject to licenses that they should read. If they fuck up it's their own fault. Do you really want your user base to consist of people who don't read your license and don't try to honor your rights and only care about their own profit?

>Businesses need to learn that there are laws and that software is subject to licenses that they should read

I'm not saying burnt in a lawsuit against them for infringement, it could be as simple as abandoning technologies based on recommendation or clarification from their legal council.

I think the point is that the GPL has hurt open source because of the businesses' reactions. Of course it's vaguely good when businesses learn to be careful with software licensing, but if being careful entails not using open source, open source loses /because of the GPL/.

If they can modify it without worrying about legal repercussions, they're not afraid to modify it

Oh, they can modify it. They just can't redistribute the modified code as proprietary software (or under a non-compatible license). But there's nothing stopping you from taking emacs code, for example, and modifying it any way you want. Actually, that's the point of Free software.

I never said they couldn't I said they couldn't without worrying about legal repercussions. Even in the cases when they're in the right, they have to carefully worry about the license. If I develop on an opensource stack, its prohibitively expensive to deal with the overhead of fixing the underlying components rather than put workarounds in my code. Even if the former would benefit everyone the most.

I read your comment a couple of times and I must admit that I just don't get what you're trying to say. As I said before, the developers don't have to worry about legal repercussions unless they intend to distribute the modified code under a license which would violate the terms and conditions of GPL. So if you're developing an open source stack for your own personal needs, modify the underlying components any way you want to. If you want to redistribute it, though, you have to give the users of your software the same rights that you were given when you used those components. It's as simple as that.

> but there were already free -nixes out there.

What the GNU folks brought to the table is the GPL. It negates the incentive to make proprietary forks. The thriving ecosystem in which Canonical, Red Hat, IBM, among others thrive would not be possible without it.

> The GPL has ultimately done more harm than good for open source

citation needed

> Sure they don't have to give back

And that's probably why *BSD is such a rich ecosystem when compared to Linux distros.

> if product X will never be opensource, at least it will be built with good wheels.

I would prefer not creating such incentive to proprietary software. As a user, I value my rights more than I, as a programmer, value my power to restrict my users' rights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com