> If GPL licensed source code is required for a program to compile, the program must also be under the GPL.
This is obviously wrong too, or else everything compiled by gcc would need to be licensed as GPL. If you distribute a GPL licensed program then the recipient must be able to build the equivalent program from source (e.g. you can’t rely on an internal toolchain that doesn’t have a publicly available alternative) but that isn’t what the author is saying.
Yet Linux is way more popular option both on the server and the desktop. Way way way more people and companies contribute. And it seems that BSD use is declining on servers? [1] MacOs is a unix but how does that help the BSD community, as most code is build upon it and the changes don't really trickle back. Companies just take, if you can do whatever you want with the code. You can wish that everybody shared back in a perfect world, reality proves this is simply not true. At least the company trying to influence development has to contribute to gain influence, and you can fork it (with their changes!) if you don't like that.
The GNU license at least somewhat protective. To each their own, but I would never release software under a permissive free license.
>Yet Linux is way more popular option both on the server and the desktop.
On servers licensing isn't that important as you don't have to share any modifications. Licensing plays role on deployment where you may or may not have to share source code.
>MacOs is a unix but how does that help the BSD community
As counter-argument Sony used FreeBSD as basis to their PS3/4/5 OS and they've sent a number of patches upstream.
> At the same time the GNU project and FSF endorses and make heavy use of the GPL, which by its very nature is "nonfree" because it restricts what you can do with the software.
Freedom isn’t about being able to act without restrictions, it’s about not living under oppression. Freedom itself is codified in laws that guarantee the right to free speech, free assembly etc. and these laws necessarily restrict the actions of the people. Free speech doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t trump a police officer’s right to arrest you for speaking freely.
You can’t effectively build a walled garden with GPL code. You can’t effectively build spyware or adware with GPL code. You can’t effectively build black-box IoT products with GPL code. All these dark patterns aren’t possible with GPL code because the GPL places restrictions on what you can and can’t do with it. And by licensing your library as GPL, you’re also ensuring that it’s not (legally) going to be used in any of these dark pattern scenarios.
So yeah, the GPL places more restrictions on derivative works but ultimately gives users more freedom than the BSD-style licenses.
> Freedom isn’t about being able to act without restrictions, it’s about not living under oppression
GPL 3 is repressive. If you make changes to GPL 3.0 code used to run a service, you must release them or the copyfeftists can use oppressive institutions of the State to make sure you do. How is that not oppressive?
> You can’t effectively build a walled garden with GPL code.
> So yeah, the GPL places more restrictions on derivative works but ultimately gives users more freedom than the BSD-style licenses.
"Restrictions on derivative works" is the same as restriction in "on users". Just keeping track of whether you modified GPL code used in external service (even if it's just a personal web site) is burdensome.
If I want to build anything for myself, including my own walled garden, copyleft won't let me.
I don't see how it "ultimately" gives me more freedom. Maybe that's the case in a world without private property - the freedom from property?) but thankfully we don't have that yet.
This is a useless post, except as basic reading for those completely clueless about free software licenses.
There are different senses of 'free', the GPL captures one of them. Freedom of the software itself to 'live' evolve, be used. The point isn't to stop anyone from using the software. It's specifically to stop someone from using modified software and not sharing the changes for others to use. The license limitations are to promote software use and distribution.
A completely different take on 'free' is permissiveness for the user of the software to do as they please.
Each has its uses, choose an appropriate license and stop whining.
There's a bit of valid critique that GPL crowd abhors paying for software, even if that wasn't the core intent of Free Software. But BSD licensing by itself does not offer any solution. It in fact sidesteps any dealing with intellectual property - like the article goes on a rant against capitalist greed instead.
I wish the notion of GPL/commercial dual licensing were more mainstream. If there were some FSF ethics guideline one could follow. But RMS and his followers are suspicious, if not belligerent of dual licensing. Thus (and that's another valid insight there) corporations are using political influence instead.
12 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 33.9 ms ] threadWrong
This is obviously wrong too, or else everything compiled by gcc would need to be licensed as GPL. If you distribute a GPL licensed program then the recipient must be able to build the equivalent program from source (e.g. you can’t rely on an internal toolchain that doesn’t have a publicly available alternative) but that isn’t what the author is saying.
[0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1
The GNU license at least somewhat protective. To each their own, but I would never release software under a permissive free license.
[1] https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-bsd
What does that have to do with anything? Why didn't you compare Windows with both so that you can claim the superiority of closed source?
Better check the stats and see what license types are growing.
> MacOs is a unix but how does that help the BSD community, as most code is build upon it and the changes don't really trickle back
It doesn't have to trickle back, that's the whole point. It's free.
> To each their own, but I would never release software under a permissive free license.
I'd never release under, and I always look for alternatives to avoid using, GPL.
To each his own, but it doesn't matter - GPL has lost. People prefer to be free of obligations, that's why copyleftist licenses can't win.
On servers licensing isn't that important as you don't have to share any modifications. Licensing plays role on deployment where you may or may not have to share source code.
>MacOs is a unix but how does that help the BSD community
As counter-argument Sony used FreeBSD as basis to their PS3/4/5 OS and they've sent a number of patches upstream.
> At the same time the GNU project and FSF endorses and make heavy use of the GPL, which by its very nature is "nonfree" because it restricts what you can do with the software.
Freedom isn’t about being able to act without restrictions, it’s about not living under oppression. Freedom itself is codified in laws that guarantee the right to free speech, free assembly etc. and these laws necessarily restrict the actions of the people. Free speech doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t trump a police officer’s right to arrest you for speaking freely.
You can’t effectively build a walled garden with GPL code. You can’t effectively build spyware or adware with GPL code. You can’t effectively build black-box IoT products with GPL code. All these dark patterns aren’t possible with GPL code because the GPL places restrictions on what you can and can’t do with it. And by licensing your library as GPL, you’re also ensuring that it’s not (legally) going to be used in any of these dark pattern scenarios.
So yeah, the GPL places more restrictions on derivative works but ultimately gives users more freedom than the BSD-style licenses.
GPL 3 is repressive. If you make changes to GPL 3.0 code used to run a service, you must release them or the copyfeftists can use oppressive institutions of the State to make sure you do. How is that not oppressive?
> You can’t effectively build a walled garden with GPL code. > So yeah, the GPL places more restrictions on derivative works but ultimately gives users more freedom than the BSD-style licenses.
"Restrictions on derivative works" is the same as restriction in "on users". Just keeping track of whether you modified GPL code used in external service (even if it's just a personal web site) is burdensome.
If I want to build anything for myself, including my own walled garden, copyleft won't let me.
I don't see how it "ultimately" gives me more freedom. Maybe that's the case in a world without private property - the freedom from property?) but thankfully we don't have that yet.
There are different senses of 'free', the GPL captures one of them. Freedom of the software itself to 'live' evolve, be used. The point isn't to stop anyone from using the software. It's specifically to stop someone from using modified software and not sharing the changes for others to use. The license limitations are to promote software use and distribution.
A completely different take on 'free' is permissiveness for the user of the software to do as they please.
Each has its uses, choose an appropriate license and stop whining.
I wish the notion of GPL/commercial dual licensing were more mainstream. If there were some FSF ethics guideline one could follow. But RMS and his followers are suspicious, if not belligerent of dual licensing. Thus (and that's another valid insight there) corporations are using political influence instead.