|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.|
|By lemur2 on 2012-04-22 01:58:40|
> > It`s like the beos crowd here isn`t it. Where companies are worshipped, and GPL and linux uncool. |
It's nothing - nothing - to do with what's cool or uncool. It's to do with people finding that the GPL places restrictions on their code - and on the use of their code by others - that they find to be utterly objectionable.
This is a commonly expressed viewpoint, but it is a complete red herring.
The GPL doesn't apply to THEIR code (unless they want it to). The GPL only applies to code someone else wrote and placed under the GPL.
The recipient of GPL code simply doesn't get the luxury to find the restrictions of the GPL objectionable, because it isn't their code to which those restrictions apply.
Edited 2012-04-22 02:00 UTC
|- Score: 6|
|By BallmerKnowsBest on 2012-04-22 02:21:08|
> Sure the BSD license seems like a nice gesture, but all it does is ensure that the megacorps can continue to have complete control over the entire industry, while the GPL creates a level playing field for everyone. |
Imagine you're a software development company and you decide you want to do a little "Freewashing"; in other words, make a few meaningless gestures to give the appearance that you support "Free(tm)" software without going all-in, or maybe to lure in some suckers to do free development work for you. So you decide to release a "community edition" of your existing commercial software, what license are you gonna choose, BSD? HELL no! That would let your competitors take the code and do whatever they want with it. Instead, you're probably going to release the software under GPL3.
That lets you (for example) release a "Free(tm)" version of a web application & plaster it with your branding and copyright notices. Then you can do things that would be considered dickish even with commercial licenses, like use the "legal notices" clause so that if anyone removes your branding, you can then threaten to go after them for GPL infringement (*cough-cough* http://www.cynapse.com/resources... *cough-cough*). But because you've released your software as GPL, you can still play the good guy and justify your actions as "protecting Freedom(tm)" or some other noble-sounding BS.
So despite your "BSD lets megacorps control the entire industry" hand-wringing, the reality is that GPL3 is much more "megacorp"-friendly than the BSD license.
|- Score: 3|
|By Soulbender on 2012-04-22 02:22:08|
> The GPL is complex, therefore BSD is better? |
Simpler is often better.
> VHS vs Beta, is one example everyone seems to know.
Windows vs Linux, is another I`d like to cite.
This really has absolutely nothing to do with this.
> Why this refusal to go completely opensource
Some say that the BSD/MIT license is more open than the GPL. Who does so many GPL project refuse to go completely open?
> If you release a project under the BSD, spent 10 years on it, and some dude just incorporates his proprietary thing into it, and makes a lot of money, don`t you feel some kind of injustice? There you are not getting any of that money, and they guy who only had the skill for his proprietary tweaks gets it all.
You do know that the GPL does not prevent this from happening either, right?
> Then again the BSD logo is a satan. I am sure all satans are proud to be abused.
a) "the BSD logo" is not satan. b) are you trying to be funny?
|- Score: 5|
|By cade on 2012-04-22 02:27:08|
In many cases, where applicable, a lot of people suffer because they choose not to enlighten themselves. |
If the GPL creates a level playing field then why is it that the number of Windows desktops thrashes the number of Linux/etc. desktops in the world. Megacorps like Microsoft get by since many consumers refuse or don't realise that they can enlighten themselves in regards to alternative solutions (OS, programs, etc). It's like when layman people invest in Microsoft Office and then I mention the merits of apps like OpenOffice (especially the nil cost) and then they wakeup. Complete control occurs when the "sheep" decide they want to be controlled, decide not to make a stand towards personal enlightenment.
There are people who code for the love of coding and the love of the coded project and have no problems with sharing their efforts through a BSD licence.
While the code may benefit some "evil" mega-corps, the code also has the potential to benefit many other entities be it the student, academician, professional, consultant, etc. within a no-strings-attached context.
This is not the 1980's/1990's where Microsoft had free reign. Who would have thought that Microsoft would contribute to the Linux space. I remember reading Microsoft's marketing material against Linux in the late 1990's, they were scared of Linux back then. Consider the Google/Apple app stores and the rise of standards like OpenGL, etc.
With society-based enlightenment comes a more level playing field.
|- Score: 1|
|Which is more free?|
|By fretinator on 2012-04-22 02:59:43|
Hey, let's have a discussion on which license is more free - BSD or GPL. |
Also, what's the best distro out there?
And, how about that new operating system, Emacs. Takes a while to boot up. Then again, that "beep" editor, VI, sure seems hard to learn.
50 bonus points for the first person to use a Nazi reference.
|- Score: 10|
|By demetrioussharpe on 2012-04-22 03:07:07|
> > Would the Linux kernel exist today without the GPL and the friendly ecosystem around the code that it helped build? |
It certainly wouldn't exist if it was released under GPL V3.
Let's take it even farther. I seem to recall (& I could be wrong here) that Linux wouldn't even exist if there wasn't so much confusion about the legality of the BSD codebase. Back in those days, there were no Free/Open/NetBSD. Had that not been the case, then the messiah of Linux would be a BSD user & Linux wouldn't even exist. In all likelyhood, he'd probably be on the core team of one of the BSD's. If not, then he'd probably have his own BSD group.
It's not about profits or licenses for every single programmer. It really doesn't matter if someone gets rich off of a programmer's codebase. Most people seem to forget that the very same programmer who originally wrote the code could have just as easily gotten rich off of it. Also, even if a company poaches the code, the original code still exists. It can still be modified in various ways & the original author still has the opportunity to get rich from it...if they so desire.
|- Score: 2|
|RE: BSD vs GPL - again|
|By Soulbender on 2012-04-22 03:19:47|
> The reason why Linux and associated projects like KDE and GNOME have become so massively successful is the GPL |
And here I was, thinking they are popular because they are actually good.
> The GPL-backed Linux runs on more architectures than any other operating system ever conceived, supports more features than any operating system ever conceived, powers 90% of the top500, powers hundreds of millions of smart phones, most web servers and so much more. Still people come out of their caves and claim how superior *BSD is . *yawn*
It's funny that when we're talking about Linux quantity equals quality but when we're talking about Windows it doesn't.
|- Score: 3|
|By Soulbender on 2012-04-22 03:26:07|
|Oh the irony.|
|- Score: 2|
|By Soulbender on 2012-04-22 03:33:38|
> simply because it does not allow the release of proprietary software based on said code, something that the BSD license does allow. |
Really? I could swear that many companies, for example Zimbra, provide community and commercial versions of their products where the commercial one contains proprietary code that never makes it to the community version.
> Would the Linux kernel exist today without the GPL and the friendly ecosystem around the code that it helped build?
Considering Linus dislike for some parts of GPL2 and all of GPL3 then yes, it probably would. He has himself said that picking GPL was purely a practical decision and that he might have gone with BSD if it hadn't been for the At&T vs Berkely thing.
|- Score: 2|
|RE: Practical considerations|
|By Excarnate on 2012-04-22 04:30:26|
> 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?
|- Score: 5|