So you don't consider a permissive license to be friendly with the free software community, or is that a typo?
To stereotype:
GPL == best for users
BSD == best for developersYou know CodeCombat recently open sourced their game? They're basically the first gamedev company in the history of gamedev to do that -- a non-indie company who open sourced their current-gen tech. It's a good idea, and I hope more companies follow. So, times are changing, but in the meantime your strict adherence to "GPL license == good guys; MIT license == bad guys" is detrimental to pretty much an entire community of programmers. (Programmers with zero options; they're not going to ragequit the gamedev industry just because engines are closed source.)
Poor you. The game industry _chooses_ not to go near GPL'd code because they want to sell proprietary software. Counteracting the existence of companies doing proprietary software is the very reason why the free software movement was started in the first place.
Yes, the free software movement is supposed to be detrimental to the developers of proprietary software and has no incentive to cater to their needs. Do you think we want to make Windows or iOS a more attractive platform? Or to build components to be used to improve proprietary engines instead of helping free ones because hey, the proprietary devs may send a bugfix our way? No.
MIT-license users are not bad guys -- I have both GPL and MIT code out there myself -- but choosing a non-copyleft license because it helps proprietary developers is not a good reason. I chose MIT to interoperate with other free software; if it wasn't for that I would have chosen the GPL or the LGPL.
> hurting our entire industry
I think the entire software industry is _helped_ if I drive it towards free software. I don't care how many billions the next Call of Duty game will make. I care if local developers in my country can get a consulting gig because the system my government uses is open source and so they have a shot at fixing its bugs instead of having my government sign a multimillion dollar contract with a major foreign company and get locked-in to it.
> (Programmers with zero options; they're not going to ragequit the gamedev industry just because engines are closed source.)
Weak argument. Back then would you say "system programmers are not going to ragequit the industry just because operating systems are closed source". But instead, they wrote open operating systems. Follow their example. Write a free engine. That's the entire point.
Back then would you say "system programmers are not going to ragequit the industry just because operating systems are closed source". But instead, they wrote open operating systems. Follow their example. Write a free engine. That's the entire point.
The gamedev industry isn't like other industries. You can't spend a decade writing an engine. You therefore need talent in order to write a competitive non-toy engine. This means you must work in the game industry for a period of time to get that talent. You also need to be brought up steeped in the sort of culture that makes you mentally inclined to open source your years of hard work rather than keeping it closed and proprietary. That's why it's a mistake to villify the MIT license -- you're cutting off an entire generation of programmers from open source culture. Specifically, the generation of programmers who want to be game developers. The reason is because they are going to be working in the gamedev industry, and hence the MIT license is going to be their only option to participate in open source culture. Villifying them will drive them away, and future talent will write proprietary closed-source engines as a result rather than free and open source ones.
In summary, villifying the MIT license is directly counterproductive to your philosophical goal of seeing less proprietary software.
In fact, proprietary engines that are less than a decade old and have exceeded their commercial usefulness are often open sourced.
In fact, I would say the video game industry is somewhat unique in the case of software dev, as it is not generally a "life improver". Video games are not tools that would improve the world if everyone had free access to them. In fact, most big games being proprietary (and not free) is probably a blessing for the productivity of the entire human race.
I personally don't want most of my multiplayer games to be open source (you used the example of Call of Duty), because when the client is open source it is much easier to cheat (and build your own "cheat client")
Is this really true? I always thought it was to counteract the abuses of companies doing proprietary software.
MIT-license users are not bad guys -- I have both GPL and MIT code out there myself -- but choosing a non-copyleft license because it helps proprietary developers is not a good reason.
Proprietary developers might disagree with you. There is a lot of evil done by proprietary software companies. Especially...
...have a shot at fixing its bugs instead of having my government sign a multimillion dollar contract with a major...
...situations like that, but not everyone who does proprietary software is automatically evil. In my philosophy, evil comes about through non-consensuality. It's providing choice that stops evil and it's suppressing choice that encourages it. The emergence of open source software, then, is a good. The elimination of all proprietary would be an evil.
Nope. Gamedevs are covered under both non-disclosure and non-compete agreements. There's a lot of red tape to cut through to release something as open source. Even if you've written it at home on your own time, companies have made a big deal about employees open-sourcing code before.
This is doubly true in the finance industry.
Without MIT licensing, there would be an extra hurdle of "GPL? We cannot under any circumstances be associated with GPL." It's absolutely silly, but absolutely true. I'm speaking as someone with firsthand, I've-been-there-in-person-and-dealt-with-this experience.
Also, by releasing it as GPL, no other gamedevs can use it. We gamedevs like to release code that other gamedevs can use.
Personally I choose a license relevant for the kind of software and what it will be used for. When that includes software I want people to be able to use in commercial software I use MIT. I'm still releasing hard work for free, I don't have your admiration, but people get to use it.
Facebook uses the PHP license for HHVM which is a very significant OSS contribution, and has very similar terms to MIT.
Other gamedevs absolutely can use it. The only thing they can't do is include it in a shipping product. Light Table appears to be an IDE, and there is no problem using a GPL IDE for writing a commercial product any more than there is a problem compiling it with GCC.
Straw man.
> who don't want to give back anything
Straw man.
There's nothing under GPL/LGPL I need or particularly want, but I do benefit from BSD-based stuff if only because I can't statically link LGPL stuff and I find the GPL unethical. Of course I'll give back where I change stuff, because I'm not an asshole. But GPL/LGPL ignores reality in too many ways to be viable; I personally like the CDDL quite a bit but nobody uses it.
The fact that some code is licensed with the GPL is in no way detrimental to anybody. If the person who had written the GPL code had instead made the code completely closed source, "game programmers" would have been in a situation that would can only be the same, or worse. They would still have to write their own code, and wouldn't have even the choice of building upon the free software and making it free to everyone else.
Open source developers are under no obligation to do your work for you, or to make your life easier. That some choose to do so is fantastic. To expect everyone to give away their code with no form of compensation is silly (even if that compensation is simply paying it forward).
And there's always the third option... pay someone for an alternate license to the code. Do you really dig Lighttable, and want to incorporate it in your closed source videogame? Pay the developer enough money that he'll license it to you without any of the GPL clauses.
I also think the MIT license is great, or at the very least that people who use it shouldn't be vilified. As I mentioned elsewhere, vilifying the MIT license is counterproductive to our mutual goal of seeing less proprietary software. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7026368
0. https://github.com/id-Software 1. http://en.whttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quake_-_family_...
It's still a really cool thing to do, but neither Id (or any other game company I'm aware of, anywhere, ever), has released their game as GPL while they were still making significant amounts of money from it (which in practice means within the first couple of months, for almost all games).
That community effect can make BSD/MIT/etc. better for users.
The idea that GPL is "best for users" seems to rest on at least one two assumptions, both of which are flawed:
1. No one considers licenses when they select free software, so that someone who would use a piece of software under a permissive license will use it under a GPL-style license (discounting the fact that there are organizations that simply won't touch software with GPL-style terms, that would use it with BSD-style terms),
2. People always and only give back when legally required to do so.
The assumptions you cite are not the primary reason GPL software is considered "best for users" (by some). The second point is not even relevant for users but developers.
GPL software is guaranteed to stay free. That's what's relevant for the user.
(Personally I like both kinds of licenses, so I'm not arguing for/against either)
No, the point wasn't "only permissively licensed software can have communities" (which would be ridiculous), it was "the fact that many organizations are less receptive to the GPL can result in larger potential contributing communities for permissively-licensed projects".
> GPL software is guaranteed to stay free.
GPL software is no more guaranteed to stay free than permissively licensed software is.
The closest thing to that that is a real difference between GPL and permissively-licensed software is that, assuming no radical change on the part of the FSF (or, alternatively, assuming the "or any later version" option isn't used), GPL software is guarantted to not have legal non-free derivative works not separately licensed by the copyright owner. Which is relevant to the degree of control that the copyright owner can exercise -- and why it is popular for commercial Open Core schemes -- but not particularly relevant, at least in a positive sense, for users.
"Can" result, perhaps, but there seems to be little real word data behind that claim. I've heard this a few times, but I've never seen any numbers to back it up. As a counter example: The Linux kernel seems to be the most commercially backed OSS project of all. If what you say would be true, why would the major players not flock to the BSD:s instead?
> not particularly relevant, at least in a positive sense, for users.
What you say about the GPL is only true for projects where copyright is assigned away from the contributor. And a lot of developers as well as users tend to shy away from those for just the same reasons you state.
The wording of the claim is particularly relevant. You seemed to acknowledge it, but then ignored it. The claim doesn't require data; it's using a priori reasoning. In particular, it assumes that the GPL is one potential road block preventing certain entities from using software. If a roadblock is removed, then that can result in a larger community. (N.B. Removing a road block, in and of itself, doesn't imply that more people will come.)
This is specifically one practical reason why I use permissive licenses. I want to maximize the number of people using my software. If I use the GPL, due to its infectious nature, people tell me they can't use it because their employer won't allow it. This conflicts with my goal of maximizing the number of people who can use my software.
> As a counter example: The Linux kernel seems to be the most commercially backed OSS project of all. If what you say would be true, why would the major players not flock to the BSD:s instead?
That's not a counter example. The claim in question here does not imply that GPL projects cannot have large communities.
But on the other hand a permissive licence could just as well be a road block preventing 'certain entities' from contributing code, and if it had a copyleft licence it could result in a larger amount of contributions.
In short, in lack of any data to back either of these hypothesises means they are just that, hypothesises.
There are successful collaborative projects using both types of licences, andydroid pointed out Linux which is GPL licenced and also the largest collaboratively developed software project in the world, so certainly GPL is not a serious problem when it comes to getting contributions or use (Linux is practically everywhere).
Looking at the larger open source landscape, it's my impression that copyleft is predominantly used in larger, finished application type projects (of which Light Table is a perfect example), while permissive licencing dominates in component/framework style code.
At the end of the day it's up to the developer to choose the licence for _their_ code, both copyleft and permissive licencing fulfills a need, else they would not be so popular amongst developers.
>This is specifically one practical reason why I use permissive licenses. I want to maximize the number of people using my software.
Nothing wrong with that, but there's also nothing wrong with wanting to licence your code so that end users of your code and it's derivatives are given rights (which include the source).
A permissive license, by definition, cannot prevent an entity from contributing to it. I've never heard anyone tell me they won't use a permissively licensed project for any reason related to its licensing.
> In short, in lack of any data to back either of these hypothesises means they are just that, hypothesises.
If you still think this claim requires data, then I'm afraid you're missing the point. The claim is using a priori reasoning, and makes an assumption about removing road blocks from using open source projects. The claim does not make any quantitative claims relating permissively licensed projects and GPL projects.
In any case, making a quantitative claim here is nearly impossible. There are too many confounding factors.
> Nothing wrong with that, but there's also nothing wrong with wanting to licence your code so that end users of your code and it's derivatives are given rights (which include the source).
I don't understand your point here. I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. I merely stated that the claim made by dragonwriter actually factors into my decision to use permissive licenses. i.e., Anecdotally, the GPL is enough of a barrier that I perceive a permissive license as better if I want to maximize the number of people using my software.
Nor can a copyleft licence 'prevent' an entity from contributing it. It is a choice, just as someone could choose to only contribute to permissive projects they could also choose to only contribute to copyleft licenced projects, so I fail to see what point you are trying to make here.
>I've never heard anyone tell me they won't use a permissively licensed project for any reason related to its licensing.
Now you bring up 'use' which is different from 'contributing'. And given that copyleft requires the source code to be open, it can't be used with proprietary projects (which of course permissively licenced code can), but that is by design as copyleft exist to give end users the rights which proprietary software typically removes.
>and makes an assumption about removing road blocks from using open source projects.
And I pointed out the assumption is flawed since he (dragonwriter) talked about 'contribution'.
Saying that a lot of 'entities' are happy to _use_ permissively licenced code is not the same as them _contributing_ code under permissive licences.
> I merely stated that the claim made by dragonwriter actually factors into my decision to use permissive licenses.
And I merely pointed out that there are other factors than 'maximising code use' which developers may consider when licencing their code.
Oh, and I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for Wingo, really like it!
Pure and simple: someone works for an employer whose policy is not to use GPL'd code. Therefore, they cannot use any code I publish under the GPL license.
No such policy exists (that I've heard of) for permissively licensed code.
> Now you bring up 'use' which is different from 'contributing'.
You're the one who said "contributing"! :-) I initially said "use" several comments ago: "I want to maximize the number of people using my software."
> Oh, and I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for Wingo, really like it!
Thanks :-) Come hang out on IRC/FreeNode at `#wingo`. (Although it's kind of dead.)
Ah, yes you did, however the claim you initially referenced talked about contributing code, not using.
>Thanks :-) Come hang out on IRC/FreeNode at `#wingo`. (Although it's kind of dead.)
Maybe I will dust off irssi and drop by :)
Yes it is. Given the counter example one might just as well argue that the GPL can attract more commercial contributors than a permissively licensed project, or even that such licensing is a "roadblock" for some contributors.
You really find this sort of "a priori reasoning" meaningful?
A counter example demonstrates a claim as false by assuming it is true, and the demonstrating that, in reality, it is false.
Your counter example does no such thing. It merely shows that a GPL project can be popular. In particular, your example does not denote any relationship between GPL and permissively licensed projects.
> You really find this sort of "a priori reasoning" meaningful?
Yes. Re-read my last comment to you. I explicitly described how it was meaningful. I'd rather remove roadblocks to using my software than add them.
There's a reason I use "can" instead of "does". Its very hard to quantify the effects of licensing since you can't easily isolate it from other contributing factors.
> As a counter example: The Linux kernel seems to be the most commercially backed OSS project of all. If what you say would be true, why would the major players not flock to the BSD:s instead?
That's a very good point. OTOH, while there are widely used GPL RDBMS, which ones have the non-first-party commercial backing of SQLite or Postgres?
> What you say about the GPL is only true for projects where copyright is assigned away from the contributor.
From the point of view of a downstream developer, its more of a concern with assignment, true. In any case, its not a positive benefit for users.
In the world where I live there is also a different kind of people
developers == usersGPL is perfectly fine. It's a good match for something like LightTable. However companies that practice dual-licensing and that require copyright assignment for contributions do not have to play by the same rules as the third-parties that are contributing and I think this is poisonous.
It's a good business strategy of course, however, how many times have you heard of such a company that does profit sharing with the third-parties that contributed code? It's also bad for the company ... if some third-party releases some really good plugin as GPL, without doing copyright assignment, then it means the plugin in question will never be a part of the official distribution, which hurts all parties.
This is why I prefer the open core model, in which anybody can build proprietary things on top. For example IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition is licensed with the Apache 2.0 license. Apache 2.0 is IMHO the best open-source license. IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate edition includes all kinds of smarts and JetBrains is doing well - it obviously doesn't hurt them when third-parties release plugins such as this one: http://cursiveclojure.com/ - it actually helps them, because they don't have the resources to build plugins for everything under the sun.
BTW - I'm happy that LightTable was released as open-source. I would have preferred another license, preferably one that is compatible with EPL (that's pervasive in Clojure's ecosystem), but can't complain, it's their right to do as they please.
AFAIK the money made is shared amongst x264 key contributors, but I have no idea if any money trickles down to less prolific contributors.
> if some third-party releases some really good plugin as GPL, without doing copyright assignment, then it means the plugin in question will never be a part of the official distribution,
Why not? I don't see why a third-party plugin should be excluded from the official open source distribution? Obviously they can't offer a proprietary licence for it alongside their own code, but it could still be part of the official release.
>This is why I prefer the open core model, in which anybody can build proprietary things on top.
Hmm... actually I prefer that if someone should make money off proprietary use of open source code, then it should be the authors of that open source code, so personally I prefer the dual-licence mechanism that the x264 devs use.
Anyone can use x264 in full open source fashion under GPL, if someone wants to use their work for proprietary means, the x264 developers are compensated for allowing this.
Supporting BSD and Apache licenses as compatible with free software is something done in addition to supporting the GPL.
The term "open source", however was coined Eric Raymond and the Open Source Initiative. Nobody before OSI ever said "open source" to refer to software. The term was coined during a brainstorming session prior to the release of Mozilla. There is an unrelated, older occurrence of the term in "open source intelligence" which is about how to spy on people using publicly available sources, but nothing about software nor all the other things people mean with "open source" nowadays.
As a marketing term, open source has met its goal admirably: it is a far more popular term than "free software", being used to describe many things and situations other than software, and many of them almost completely unrelated to anything that OSI originally intended.
It all depends on pespective. GPL has more freedom for users, BSD for developers.
Both are valid licenses that do different things. Calling one restrictive just shows that you view this from one side only.
It is objectively and unequivocally less restrictive than the GPL. All it restricts is your ability to claim it is your own code. The GPL adds several more restrictions. Thus it is more restrictive. Arguing that you think those restrictions serve a purpose does not mean you can claim they are not restrictions. Lame straw man crap like pretending anyone ever said the GPL wasn't "valid" doesn't belong in a reasoned conversation.
Neither of those licenses allows you to claim some code is "your own". Copyright still applies.
> The GPL adds several more restrictions.
I can easily rephrase that as GPL adds more freedoms. Your restriction is somebody else's freedom. A matter of perspective.
> does not mean you can claim they are not restrictions
I can claim anything I like, and I provide a reasoning.
> Lame straw man crap like pretending anyone ever said the GPL wasn't "valid" doesn't belong in a reasoned conversation.
Except that I never said that. Oh the irony.
This is a completely irrelevant statement. What was your intended purpose for making it?
>I can easily rephrase that as GPL adds more freedoms
You could, but it would what is known as "lying". I could easily say that the sky is green too, but that doesn't mean it is.
>Your restriction is somebody else's freedom
No, restrictions are restrictions. Words have meanings, and you don't get to just pretend they mean the opposite of what they actually mean. The GPL imposes additional restrictions. You like those restrictions because of their consequences. That is fine. But that does not make them cease to be restrictions.
>I can claim anything I like
Sure, but you can't expect anyone to treat you like a rational adult if you make obviously false claims and say "I can do whatever I want!" as a rationale for it.
Copyright impose restrictions, and GPL gives permission where you do not have any. If you get sued for copyright infringement, its your job to waive the GPL as your permission to distribute. The legal permission granted in the GPL is what protect your distribution, and without it, anything requiring copyright permission is illegal.
Words have meanings indeed, and the word restrictions is thus wrong, plain and simple. The GPL provide permission under a set of requirements. This is true for any software license, including BSD/MIT.
So the obviously false claims are yours here, Im sorry to tell you. If you don't want to be granted permission under the license, all you need to do is stop infringing the copyright of the author. That and possible pay compensation for any current act of infringement.
No it is not.
>Please try understand copyright law when making statements about it.
I understand it quite well. You are simply confused. The GPL gives you permission to do things that you couldn't do otherwise due to copyright law. But it gives you that permission under several restrictions. MIT/BSD/ISC license also give you permission to do things that you couldn't do otherwise, but does so under fewer restrictions. This is not complex or difficult to understand.
I was simply going to ignore your aggressive behavior, but now that others chimed in...
> MIT/BSD/ISC license also give you permission to do things that you couldn't do otherwise, but does so under fewer restrictions.
Somebody takes a BSD program, extends it, and distributes binaries. This restricts my ability to inspect, improve, or extend the code. Restrictions don't have to be written into a license. You ignore those implicit restrictions and their consequences, while complaining about explicit restrictions.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure you're not going to agree and just add another aggressive or insulting reply.
I see simple objective questions in black and white because they are. Is 1+1 2? Yes. There is no grey area. The answer is yes. If you say it is 3, then you are in fact wrong.
>Somebody takes a BSD program, extends it, and distributes binaries. This restricts my ability to inspect, improve, or extend the code.
No it does not. See, this is precisely what I mean. You are simply making an objectively false statement. Here is some BSD licensed code: http://openssh.org/ I challenge you: restrict my ability to inspect, improve or extend it. Hundreds of closed source pieces of software use that code. Yet it is still there, still BSD licensed, my ability to inspect, improve and extend has not been magically removed.
>Anyway, I'm pretty sure you're not going to agree and just add another aggressive or insulting reply.
You might want to consider some introspection. You are screaming 1+1=3 at me and calling me "aggressive and insulting" for correcting you.
For a restriction to happen, you got to have permission in the first place. Since you do not have any permission, a copyright license can not in any form add a restriction. It is not possible under the English language.
Permission can be granted under conditions, also called requirements. A sale for example is to exchange an asset under the condition that the consumer can pay. Its not valid English to say that its an exchange of an asset under the restriction that the consumer can pay.
Your insistence on using incorrect English only paint a picture of someone with a agenda. Words has meaning, and you are trying to ignore it. Please stop.
No I am not. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/restriction
You are trying to be pedantic, but you are simply incorrect. The GPL imposes restrictions as part of the license conditions. Obviously you are not subject to those restrictions if you do not accept the license, and obviously you also don't get the permissions that go with those restrictions either. Nobody is claiming otherwise. The exact nonsense you are doing is precisely why people hate GPL nuts. You are deliberately dishonest and try to hide behind misguided pedantry.
The only way GPL can limit you, is if what you had previous is more. You might feel self-restricted by accepting a license, in the same way that my income will be restricted if I buy a new car every week. The car however is not a restriction, nor is the trade a restriction. Its my action of purchasing beyond my credit limit that is the restriction.
What people hate is irrational people that you represent here that refuses to actually use correct language in favor of pushing your agenda onto people. Calling you nut might be a bit crude, but what else is there to say.
I'm sure such a framework could be constructed, I just wouldn't call it cohesive.
http://openbsd.org/lyrics.html
However, as you well know, all BSDs really hate the GPL.