| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| GPL, copyleft use declining faster than ever |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-04-21 19:25:47 |
| "A new analysis of licensing data shows that not only is use of the GPL and other copyleft licenses continuing to decline, but the rate of disuse is actually accelerating." This shouldn't be surprising. The GPL is complex, and I honestly don't blame both individuals and companies opting for simpler, more straightforward licenses like BSD or MIT-like licenses. |
|
| RE[15]: hm? |
| By kwan_e on 2012-04-23 01:13:28 |
|
> > Here's another way to put your argument: You, for whatever reason, by Microsoft Office. The license says you are not allowed to put a torrent for it on The Pirate Bay. It's a precondition of you using that software. Do you get to agree to the "no piracy" stipulation AFTER you use the software? No? Then the license doesn't "only" stipulate things if you choose to use the software - it stipulates things before you use the software - it is a precondition. Do you understand how stupid that is? By your logic, Microsoft's Office license is FORCING you to not pirate their software because the EULA comes up before you install it, and you can't change your mind after you agree to the EULA. * Whether you believe in EULAs or not is inconsequential to the fact that it's simply stupid to argue it forces you. Ok. Try this... Macrosift is a company resulting from a corporate split at Microsoft. In the terms of the split they legally have the right to release a fork of Microsoft Office under their own terms. They now offer a similar product called Macrosift Office, but they do not have the "no torrents on piratebay" clause in their license... Ah.. Now I can get my software and am no longer forced to agree to not being a dirty scalawag pirate... See what I'm saying now? Yes, I see what you're saying, which is why I'm saying your argument is stupid. You basically argue that a contract is force. Well done on completely stripping force (and contract) of any meaning. |
 - Score: 1 |
| Pragmatic vs theoretical |
| By thesunnyk on 2012-04-23 01:31:37 |
|
I feel for you, but ultimately understand why the GPL is seeing less use. I remember reading an article on OSNews titled something like "RMS was right all along". I think people are starting to recognise that the theoretical ethics that RMS is talking about are sound, but we can't follow the same path as it pretty much involves separating ourselves from technology -- the dude uses a Longsoon. It's almost like he's a shaolin monk but most people see him getting kicked in the nads and instinctually say "err no thanks". The fact is that a lot of open source code is written in a for-profit context nowadays. They'll use OSS as a "base" and stick a proprietary icing on top. The problem here is that since the GPL is "viral", they don't want it to "infect" the proprietary code, thus forcing them to release it (I believe this has happened with the Linksys WRT router). The move to use BSD is often a practical one to keep lawyers from looking into their code. People in "pure" open source are aware that in order for their project to gain traction, the GPL is a major drawback -- LLVM is powering along while GCC languishes. Ultimately, I think everyone recognises that a world with more GPL code is probably better for all of us, but we need an approach from the GNU guys that caters for the practical problems that a lot of people end up in. The zeitgeist needs to change a little at a time. Like Mozilla supporting H.264, it isn't necessarily the right way, but it may be the only way. |
| - Score: 2 |
| GPL vs BSD |
| By andydread on 2012-04-23 01:33:39 |
| I don't see why people on here are making this so complicated. If you don't want people filing patents regarding your code and then suing you over your own code then you license your code under the GPL. If you don't care to be sued by some entity for patent infringement over some code your distributed then use BSD. simple. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[16]: hm? |
| By galvanash on 2012-04-23 01:45:11 |
|
Its not a contract, its a license... But whatever. I wasn't trying to strip anything of meaning - just trying to illustrate the comparison of the two licenses from a different point of view. Sorry if I hit a nerve - I really wasn't intending to. I'm trying really hard to be friendly since the last time we debated something it got heated and out of hand. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from the name calling in the future and Ill do the same. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[5]: hm? |
| By lemur2 on 2012-04-23 02:03:02 |
|
> If you give something away do you have the right to stipulate what a person does with it? You certainly do have a right to make something and let other people use it only in certain ways without any cost. You are getting confused thinking that the GPL license is "giving copyrights away". It isn't. The GPL license is a conditional grant of some permissions related to the covered source code, that is all that it is. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[5]: hm? |
| By jptros on 2012-04-23 02:12:29 |
| Yes, of course! Microsoft is making Windows work better on Linux for the IT managers that aren't aware that Linux exists! Got it! Hold on while I grab another beer and some popcorn, this thread just keeps getting better and better. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[17]: hm? |
| By lemur2 on 2012-04-23 02:17:04 |
|
> Its not a contract, its a license... But whatever. I wasn't trying to strip anything of meaning - just trying to illustrate the comparison of the two licenses from a different point of view. Sorry if I hit a nerve - I really wasn't intending to. I'm trying really hard to be friendly since the last time we debated something it got heated and out of hand. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from the name calling in the future and Ill do the same. You aren't being at all friendly if you are trying to insist that the GPL forces someone to do anything. Firstly, the GPL is not law. It carries no force whatsoever. Copyright law is the law, and it is copyright law which has all the force associated with it. The GPL is a license. It is not even a contract, it is purely a license. https://www.google.com/search?cli... license: Noun: A permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade. In the case of the GPL license for source code, the "authority" is the copyright holder, initially the person who wrote the code in question. This person retains that authority in respect of that code. The permissions granted by the GPL (which would normally be withheld under copyright law) are unconditional permission to use (as in run) the code, to study it, copy it and even modify it for personal use, and also permission to redistribute the code to others provided that the same permissions and conditions are passed on to those recipients. One even doesn't have to "agree" to the GPL, you are granted those conditional and unconditional permissions regardless of what you do. There is no "force" involved here whatsoever. Edited 2012-04-23 02:18 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: Pragmatic vs theoretical |
| By lemur2 on 2012-04-23 02:36:46 |
|
> They'll use OSS as a "base" and stick a proprietary icing on top. The problem here is that since the GPL is "viral", they don't want it to "infect" the proprietary code, thus forcing them to release it (I believe this has happened with the Linksys WRT router). The GPL is not "viral", it applies ONLY to a package of code released by the author of that code under the GPL. If the GPL was truly "viral", then it would not be possible at all to write any proprietary package for Linux. But here is an example of a commercial package for Linux: http://www.bricsys.com/en_INTL/b... The problem with the Linksys router was that it wasn't proprietary software that Linksys were using in their routers, it was Linux and Busybox, which are both packages which were released by their authors under the GPL. Linksys hired a firm to write code for their router products. That firm did NOT write proprietary code, they just took Linux and Busybox and tried to re-distribute it as proprietary. So under the terms of the GPL, Linksys had to provide source code. The thing is ... it was just source code for Linux and Busybox anyway, as it was used on the Linksys routers. So how did that hurt Linksys in any way? As a consequence of making that source code available, all kinds of "homebrew" firmware became available for these Linksys routers (which Linksys did not have to write), and the routers became insanely popular. https://openwrt.org/ http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom... It wasn't only the router, it was a lot of proucts, including NAS devices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSL... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uns... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU... On 11 December 2008, the Free Software Foundation sued Cisco Systems, Inc. for copyright violations by its Linksys division, of the FSF's GPL-licensed coreutils, readline, Parted, Wget, GNU Compiler Collection, binutils, and GNU Debugger software packages, which Linksys distributes in the Linux firmware[61] of its WRT54G wireless routers, as well as numerous other devices including DSL and Cable modems, Network Attached Storage devices, Voice-Over-IP gateways, Virtual Private Network devices and a home theater/media player device. After six years of repeated complaints to Cisco by the FSF, claims by Cisco that they would correct, or were correcting, their compliance problems (not providing complete copies of all source code and their modifications), of repeated new violations being discovered and reported with more products, and lack of action by Linksys (a process described on the FSF blog as a "five-years-running game of Whack-a-Mole") the FSF took them to court. Cisco settled the case six months later by agreeing "to appoint a Free Software Director for Linksys" to ensure compliance, "to notify previous recipients of Linksys products containing FSF programs of their rights under the GPL," to make source code of FSF programs freely available on its website, and to make a monetary contribution to the FSF." Linksys sold many, many times more of these WRT routers than they would have if the router had been just another closed, proprietary product. So, once again, where is the harm to Linksys? There is only upside and increased sales to Linksys ... all coming from having to release the source code of their router, which wasn't even their code to begin with. Edited 2012-04-23 02:55 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[2]: Practical considerations |
| By pfgbsd on 2012-04-23 02:37:49 |
|
> > Personally, as an open source developer, I try to choose the license with the least restrictions possible. So you release all your code into the public domain? If people in Africa could *eat* code, it would be our obligation to make all software public domain. |
| - Score: 0 |
| RE[2]: Pragmatic vs theoretical |
| By pfgbsd on 2012-04-23 02:43:24 |
|
> > They'll use OSS as a "base" and stick a proprietary icing on top. The problem here is that since the GPL is "viral", they don't want it to "infect" the proprietary code, thus forcing them to release it (I believe this has happened with the Linksys WRT router). The GPL is not "viral", it applies ONLY to a package of code released by the author of that code under the GPL. That's MPL. Anything you link with GPL'd software becomes contaminated and is also GPLd. That's one of the reasons why MacOSX doesnt carry GNU readline. |
| - Score: 0 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |