Hacker News Reader

Comment by josephcsible | Hacker News Reader

If you have a proprietary program, reimplementing it under a FOSS license is a good thing. If you have a copyleft program, reimplementing it under a license that allows proprietary modifications is a bad thing.

View on HN

From the OpenBSD Copyright Policy (https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html) just for a different perspective from another FOSS project:

"While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software. So in practice, it usually ends up hindering free sharing and reuse of code and ideas rather than encouraging it..."

I find this claim hard to believe since Linux is GPL, and it's used commercially way more than OpenBSD is.

Linux is something of a special case, as the vast majority of the users can "use it" without thinking about the implications of the GPL. Because, for example, there's a specific exception for software that uses Linux syscalls, and that glibc is licensed LGPL.

That's not true for most uses of other GPL licensed libraries and software, where the license makes your code a "derivative work".

If you're just using Linux on your own servers, or writing userland software for it, then sure, the GPL is easy to comply with. But if you distribute hardware with Linux preinstalled on it, then you do have to provide all the source code. How is this meaningfully different from basic userland tools?

Not that I'm agreeing with them, but many companies are wary of sharing their code because it opens up a path to replicate their services without paying for them. Vendors that distribute devices with Linux, though, are able to avoid that because the hardware is often still proprietary. Binary blobs still exist despite the Linux GPL license too. Even in projects that seem lauded by the "open source" community, like the Rpi.

I just don't think Linux is a great example to explain to a company why they should be fine with licensing their software under the GPL. It's not a good direct comparison in most cases.

Of course, Linux is special case, KHTML/WebKit/Blink is special case, Android is special case, etc. Blame special cases.

KHTML/Webkit/Blink are all LGPL and/or BSD, which is specifically not restrictive for linking to.

Many people assume all of Linux is GPL. I say "special case" because not everyone knows the most-linked-to stuff isn't.

? Android is, AFAIK, completely permissively licensed except for the kernel, and KHTML/WebKit/Blink are BSD/LGPL; what would be special about them in this context?

> used commercially way more

Depends by what metric and the definition of "commercially". I'm not sure this is the case for (physical) devices sold with software pre-installed.

I mainly see BSD licensed binaries on network appliances (routers, firewalls and other security appliances), apple hardware, automotive headunits, ...

There are some that are Linux based. F5 load balancers is a good example. I don't know what strategy they use to avoid it, but as far as I know, you can't replicate your own F5 with whatever GPL compliance code releases they do.

But, for some manufacturers, you can. Synology is a good example...see Xpenology.

  > it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software

whats the reason for that?

Because the GPL, specifically v3 is viral. The point being made in this statement is that the requirement to give back is potentially onerous for many commercial entities, and that this hinders open sharing rather than promoting it. It's a differing point of view. Notice that, unlike the majority of pro GPL comments, it doesn't use pejoratives or appeals to emotion to make it's point.

“Viral” is a term with a fairly pejorative emotional connotation and is not a very accurate way of describing copyleft.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license#Criticism_of_t...

The original statement doesn’t use pejoratives. Viral is the best way that I can describe it, I suppose insidious is better, but that too could be considered a pejorative. I’m struggling to find a word because I view it negatively.

Maybe "self-propagating", or "self-preserving"? The term "insidious" would not be appropriate for sure, as it means "dangerous".

Self-preserving is the best. Thank you. I personally don't like self-propagating, when the truth is that it's free, but with a catch. Forcing people to do the right thing, even if the intent is good, is still forcing someone to do something the don't want to, or even can't.

I like the viral word personally, I see it positively as popular. Free software is pretty popular its so popular that even non free software is turned into "free beer" free software! ;) If its free and open source, free to use (legal or not) people will use it virally, like Windows was virally pirated because it was free, and linux is virally used in servers since they don't have to pay per core to Microsoft.

I don't see it as pejorative, its used positively in social media for popular. Making GPL licenses popular is good.

How is that assertion not a double standard?

Not really. It has to be possible in practise to make proprietary modifications, get them accepted into common use, somehow prevent other people just cloning them, and steal the momentum of the open source project.

If someone makes proprietary extensions to "ls", they are just going to be stuck maintaining a fork. There is no realistic threat here.

"good" according to whom?

Why? You're allowed to build whatever you want, however you want? Why police people's licenses? Are they misrepresenting something, misleading people?

It's thanks to open source that you are allowed to build what whatever you want. You don't have to give back if you don't want to.

Besides the core aspect of your comment, you are aware that this entire subthread is about:

* GNU Coreutils: GPL licensed

* uutils: MIT licensed

right?

The MIT license is not only an Open Source license, but it's even a Free Software license according to the FSF itself.

So this is nitpicking of the 100th degree at this point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com