Ask Slashdot: Choosing the Right Open Source License 171
NicknamesAreStupid writes: I need to choose an open source license. I am developing an open source iOS application that use a significant number of other open source projects which, in turn, use a number of different open source licenses such as MPL/GPL, MIT, and BSD. I am also using sample code from Apple's developer site, which has their own terms of use. The code dependencies are such that my code would not be of much use without theirs. If this project is used, then it would be nice to pick a license that best fits in with this mashup. I am interested in maintaining the freedom of my code but do not want to create a catch-22 or make life hard for people who need to use this project for personal use or profit. My inclination is to use MIT's, as I have done so before. I asked an IP lawyer about this matter, and she replied (pro bono), "it probably doesn't matter." Of course, that advice was worth every penny. Moving away from legal issues and looking at this from a social perspective, which license would appeal most and offend least? I thought about no license but was warned (pro bono), "If you do not, then someone else may." Any suggestions?
If you're using GPL code, you have no choice (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're using GPL code, you have no choice but to release your code under the GPL as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice (Score:5, Informative)
public domain is a myth
[citation needed]
Mickey Mouse Protection Act [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Project Gutenburg would be a counter-proof.
Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, no. The issue is whether code - or any other copyrighted work - will ever enter public domain. Mickey Mouse Protection Act says it won't, and Project Gutenbert doesn't contradict that.
Not that it matters: copyright law has almost no legitimacy whatsoever, so it simply gets ignored despite draconian punishments. The whole concept of property law seems to simply be incompatible with the digital realm, consequently various message boards and other sites depending on user-generated content basically operate as communist utopias: everyone contributes whatever they can, the results are free for everyone to use at their leisure, and even personal glory isn't an issue, at least in anonymous messageboards. That's right: aside from its current immaturity, Anonymous is pretty much a model Marxist collective.
Funny, isn't it? Capitalism won the Cold War, but its natural development is now leading to Communism because that maximizes production in the Information Age. It wasn't a good model for industrial production, but as that keeps getting automated and focus shifts on coordination and cultural production, it turns out hierarchies simply get in the way. So nominally communist countries were arranged like giant corporations, while the new organizational model everyone's learning growing up now is "contribute according to your abilities, enjoy other people's contributions freely".
I wonder if this is why neoliberalism has been so fashionable lately: it's the struggle of a fading system to maintain it's dominance rather than be relegated to handling just a small subsection of total economy?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I forgot to add that your Mickey Mouse Protection Act doesn't even apply here anyway. Unfortunately determining the details of what is/isn't public domain is still difficult: http://www.digitalnz.org/make-... [digitalnz.org]
but none of that means that it's a myth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Few if any legal systems have a process for reliably donating works to the public domain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
But things can go into the public domain after a time, which is what the post was referring to.
Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice (Score:5, Interesting)
Read the license from the perspective of your users. If a later GPL version adds new protections against software patents, API copyrights, or whatever else the legal system dreams up, the users can opt to follow the terms of that license. If, in a moment of collective insanity, the FSF publishes a less-free GPL, the user can opt to use the earlier version your software was originally released under.
That clause actually ensures that the current version establishes a minimum set of rights.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with this argument is if someone forks my project, and publishes it under a newer license, I can no longer accept changes back into my codebase. If I did, I would be forced to use the new license, making the GPL doubly viral, cannibalizing its own license to spread its viewpoint. This is the reason Linus made the Linux kernel GPL2 only.
Re: (Score:3)
It still wouldn't matter. The other authors can license any way they want as long as it is compatible with your license. In the case of the GPL they can release their software as later version and still push back to your project under your version. You can take your code and release it proprietary and gpl at the same time because it's your code.
Re: (Score:2)
the GPL is free even for the arseholes. it just doesn't let them be arseholes WITH the GPL-ed code.
GPL = once free, always free. no special privileges for arseholes to make it non-free in future.
Re: (Score:3)
the GPL is free even for the arseholes. it just doesn't let them be arseholes WITH the GPL-ed code.
GPL = once free, always free. no special privileges for arseholes to make it non-free in future.
The copyright owner/owners can always re-issue under any licence they choose at any time, the only complication that can arise is when there are multiple owners who can't or will not agree to change the licence. This is a problem with the Linux kernal because there have been so many contributions that have been added and removed over the decades that no one knows who all the copyright owners are.
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume based on the OP/summary, it's dual licensed MPL/GPL source code, otherwise you are correct...
However, the summary also mentions iOS, and I was under the impression that GPL apps on the Apple AppStore are a no go?
eg. http://www.zdnet.com/article/n... [zdnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
My assumption on reading the OP was that they didn't realize MPL and GPL are different animals.
Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice (Score:5, Informative)
However, the summary also mentions iOS, and I was under the impression that GPL apps on the Apple AppStore are a no go?
FWIW, the situation is a bit more nuanced than that.
If the GPL licensed code is entirely your own work, you can relicense it any way you want, including to Apple for distribution on the App Store.
Where you can get into trouble with the App Store is if you take someone else GPL'd code and release it on the App Store. This could be by including third-party GPL routines, or by publishing code that was developed by multiple parties, without their permission, where copyright has not been reassigned. This was the case for the VLC player: as the article you linked alludes, Apple took that old VLC player app out of their app store due to a copyright complaint from one of the VLC developers. That was back in 2011 -- the VideoLAN Oragniaztaion has since released their own VLC for iOS [videolan.org], while still retaining the GPL license (albeit in part by dual-licensing it as MPL/GPL).
Yaz (IANAL)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably GPL, but depends on Apple (Score:5, Informative)
You beat me to it :-)
To the original poster:
The GPL is "viral" in that if you use even a smattering of GPLed code, you are required to release ALL of your code as GPL as well.
It concerns me that you state you use example Apple code. What license is it? ("has its own terms" is completely unhelpful).
In general, you're restricted to using a license that is the most restrictive. The liberal licenses like BSD and MIT can morph into anything pretty much. GPL is one of the most restrictive on redistribution (RMS would say it preserves user freedoms by restricting developer distribution, and I would tend to agree with it; just throwing that in there because I don't mean restrictive in a negative sense here, only that it was designed to prevent people from running off with the code without contributing back to the community, so you can't just re-release GPLed code under MIT like you suggested). Apple's license may be open source or not; furthermore, there are known open source licenses that are NOT compatible with the GPL, so its entirely possible that the Apple code may not be distributed together with the GPL code. For reference, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/li... [gnu.org].
It's possible your pro-bono advice is correct and this doesn't matter too much if you release it publicly and open source (it seems unlikely open source projects would sue other open source projects), but in case you ever plan on making money on this project (and even if you don't), to avoid any possible legal trouble you should choose the most restrictive license compatible with all licenses at play. Likely this means the GPL, but the wildcard is Apple. If you post the terms to it, we could probably help sort it out (with the usual IANAL caveat). Otherwise, you may need to rethink which libraries are included with your code and possibly even roll your own depending how niche it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Incorrect... Copyright says that you can't legally make a derivative work at all without permission from the copyright holder. The GPL gives people such permission when they agree to abide by its terms. If they don't agree, they don't have permission to do it in the first place, which is the default status for any copyrighted work, anyways.
What's viral about that?
Re: (Score:2)
What's viral about that?
It's viral in that there's an awful lot of freeloaders out there who are convinced that somehow they have the right to use the code completely for free and are angry that the the owner of the code insists on "share and share alike". Oddly they don't apply the same logic to commercial software.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if's only viral if you're stupid and self entitled enough to think you can use it and not abide by the terms.
Yes, BSD is completely free, and has its place in the world. I've worked on commercial software based on BSD licensed code.
But when people who weren't forced to use GPLd code bitch about it being viral, they're essentially being childish idiots.
Its screams "waaah, the bad man won't let me take his code and change the license and use it how I see fit". Nobody promised you the code, nobody owes
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's not a problem with the license.
It's the problem of people who are mixing and matching licenses and ignoring what they say.
This is a contrived example of someone doing a shitty job o
Re: (Score:2)
BSD is pretty much compatible with every license, including proprietary ones. Microsoft has incorporated BSD code (at least they've issued the necessary notices). Nobody seems to complain, except when somebody using a GPL version uses BSDed code. Somehow, that's considered evil.
The most practical thing may be to keep the BSD code separate, modify it and release the modifications under the BSD, and keep that license available for that specific code. The combined work has to be released under the GPL,
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL is "viral" in that if you use even a smattering of GPLed code, you are required to release ALL of your code as GPL as well.
Not true. Go back and re-read the GPL. You are required to release your code under a license that places no more restrictions on it than the GPL. You must also license the combined work under the GPL. It is, however, completely fine to take a few files of GPL'd code, combine them with some BSDL'd code files (as long as those files are not a derived work of the GPL'd code) and ship the resulting program under the GPL. If someone else takes only the BSDL'd files for use in another project then they are n
Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice (Score:5, Informative)
This is baloney. You can release _your_ code under whatever license you choose, as long as the license doesn't conflict with the GPL as applied to the derivative work as a whole.
So, for example, I can contribute code to the GPLv2-licensed Linux kernel under an MIT or BSD 3-clause license. This is quite common (I dare you to grep the kernel source tree). Now, when you distribute the Linux kernel including your MIT-licensed code, you must obey the source code disclosure requirement of the GPL. But if I'm a FreeBSD developer and want to incorporate your code in my BSD-licensed kernel, I can freely copy and reuse just the MIT-licensed portions.
So stop spreading FUD. There's nothing "viral" about the GPL which distinguishes it from any other form of licensing. The BSD license is "viral" in that any derived works still have to obey the copyright notice requirements. Closed source licenses are "viral" in the sense that if your work uses closed-source software, your derivative work is subject to the restrictions and limitations of the closed-source license.
The only real issue here is the GPLv3's patent license requirements. But you can, for example, mix the GPLv3 and Apache License 2.0. And if you don't actually own any patents which pertain to your contribution, then when you release your code to the public you're basically closing the door on any future patents (by publication), which makes the patent issue moot, anyhow. Although it could still be a headache for others who would otherwise want explicit assurance that there's no patent trap.
Re: (Score:3)
Great post. Moderators, take note.
I would add one thought: the GPL is indeed viral, but in the sense of HIV, rather than, say, influenza. You need to get "intimate" with GPL code to be "infected" by it. The level of intimacy that causes infection varies with context, but it happens through consent, not by accident.
Re: (Score:2)
And, more importantly ... if you think the GPL is "viral" and will "contaminate" your code ... piss off and don't use the GPL code. You don't have a "right" to the code.
This isn't a real problem in that the GPL sneaks in and alters other code licenses when nobody is looking.
This is a problem in that people want to use the GPL code in a way which is incompatible with the GPL, and then they become whiny idiots about how unfair the GPL is to them.
You are perfectly free to not use GPL code. Just because you w
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a real problem in that the GPL sneaks in and alters other code licenses when nobody is looking.
This is a problem in that people want to use the GPL code in a way which is incompatible with the GPL, and then they become whiny idiots about how unfair the GPL is to them.
Correct. Like I said, the "infection" happens through consent, not by accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm, no.
At least not more than anything else.
Yes, there are people not following the terms of the license. Just like there are people not following the terms of other licenses.
But conflating those people with the people who are following the terms of the license -- people who say "Sorry, I can't use GCC, so I have to go play in the LLVM sandbox over here, and btw, if you want me to be able t
Re: (Score:2)
Well, speaking of strawmen...
Yes, there are people not following the terms of the license. Just like there are people not following the terms of other licenses.
But conflating those people with the people who are following the terms of the license -- people who say "Sorry, I can't use GCC, so I have to go play in the LLVM sandbox over here, and btw, if you want me to be able to contribute to projects in the future, the GPL is a non-starter" -- thinking or representing that those saying they cannot use your code are the same people as those illegally using your code -- that is just wrong.
First of all, gstoddart didn't conflate people who "whine" about the restrictions of the GPL (whether they violate the license or not) with those who respect it and avoid GPL code on principle and in good faith. He only spoke of the former, who indeed want to "steal" GPL code whether or not they actually do.
Second, compiling your code with GCC does not infect your source-code, or the compiled binary, with the GPL. Unless you static-link to a GPL library, but that's avoided easil
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, he brought that up himself, in a conversation that wasn't about that at all, so... strawman.
Yeah, and you brought this up in a conversation where... I wasn't claiming that, or the grandparent, or that great-grandparent. So yeah, another strawman. You guys ke
Re: (Score:2)
But you knew that, right? Please tell me you knew that all the people who wrote LLVM didn't do so because they were worried that just compiling stuff with GCC would i
Re: (Score:2)
http://rlv.zcache.com/earth_wi... [zcache.com]
Re: (Score:2)
it was actually the great Saint RMS himself who started all the FUD about GPL infection, when he forced the guy who wrote common Lisp to change his license to the GPL, merely because common Lisp could dynamically link to readline.
common Lisp didn't need readl
Re: (Score:2)
You can release _your_ code under whatever license you choose, as long as the license doesn't conflict with the GPL as applied to the derivative work as a whole.
Right, what he should have said was "GPL-compatible" license.
There's nothing "viral" about the GPL which distinguishes it from any other form of licensing. The BSD license is "viral" in that any derived works still have to obey the copyright notice requirements. Closed source licenses are "viral" in the sense that if your work uses closed-source software, your derivative work is subject to the restrictions and limitations of the closed-source license.
There is a degree of difference there though. Yes the BSD license is equally "viral" but the implications and restrictions imposed are significantly less of an imposition than those of the GPL. The same applies to closed source software which is why closed source and BSD software can be sold in the Apple App Store but GPL software cannot.
The only real issue here is the GPLv3's patent license requirements.
Well that depends on if he wants to distribute this iOS program in the App Store [fsf.org].
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on if you want to push for everything being open source or if you just want to spread your pieces as open source. In the latter case the Apache license is probably one of the better with few snags for those that want to incorporate your pieces into something bigger.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, how /. has fallen when this is modded up. It must be GPL-compatible, it must not be GPL. The FSF keeps a list of compatible licenses [gnu.org] though the general theme is "like GPL or freer", like it doesn't have to be a copyleft license. If he doesn't want to introduce any new license headaches he could just use the modified BSD license which is pretty much as minimal as it gets. Whether it resolves his license problems are another matter, the GPL demands the whole project must be compatible and I'd guess that A
Re: (Score:2)
GPL-compatible means you are allowed to use software under those licenses *from* GPL'd code, not that the GPL copyleft requirement doesn't apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, as long as you use some GPL code the requirements apply to the work as a whole. But if you write part A using the GPL license, I can write part B using the BSD license. The GPL license is okay with A+B and if someone wants to use part B in a non-GPL project or replace part A with differently licensed code they can. The point was he doesn't have to use the GPL unless he wants to. He can use a far more permissive "I don't care, use it wherever you want" license for his bits.
Re: (Score:3)
If GPL part "A" calls BSD part "B", then yes, that is true. But if BSD part "B" calls GPL part "A", it is in violation of the GPL license.
Re: (Score:2)
The same is true of any "GPL compatible" license, not just BSD.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not following. There's two parts that get linked together, A and B. The combination must be released under the GPL, and any part of the combination may be used under the GPL. Anything containing A must be released under the GPL. The BSD-licensed B may be used elsewhere under the BSD license. You only need to conform to the GPL if you don't have another license for the code you're using.
Re: (Score:2)
It must be GPL-compatible, it must not be GPL.
Why not? Based on the listed licenses GPL should still be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
But only if the GPL code can mix.
The FSF has agreed that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are fundamentally incompatible - GPLv3 imposes additional restrictions that conflict with GPLv2. So you have to be extremely careful when mixing GPL code together.
Basically, v2-only code (GPLv2) cannot touch v3 (GPLv3) code, and vice-versa. If you have v2 code, then make sure it is licensed as v2-or-higher (GPLv2+). The resulting GPLv2+ and GPLv
Re: (Score:2)
Only if the GPL code is part of your own work. OP is talking about bundling software, and then it's no problem to mix licenses: there's a lot of GPL software in my Linux Mint installation, but not all software that's bundled with it and essential for the whole to work is GPL software.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "depends on how he's using it." If it doesn't have an LGPL interface header, you MUST release the code under GPL terms to use it.
Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice (Score:5, Informative)
There is no "depends on how he's using it." If it doesn't have an LGPL interface header, you MUST release the code under GPL terms to use it.
(Sorry for the Clinton-esque answer) It depends on what you mean by "use". The problem with the original question is that there's not enough information to give a useful answer.. it's just fodder to get people talking with no real goal.
You can use GPL's software all you want, modify and recompile to your hearts content, and you don't have to release jack shit - unless you then distribute that stuff, and then only if you distribute it together (you can distribute your patches on their own with any license you choose).
That said, it sounds likely that the choices that NicknamesAreStupid made regarding various sources to include may not be very good choices, and they may be incompatible with his goals. Since he specifically mentioned the GPL (and especially since he didn't say LGPL instead), these compatibility pages should help:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/li... [gnu.org]
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gp... [gnu.org]
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gp... [gnu.org]
The FSF (Free Software Foundation) comments on GPL works within the Apple App store is also quite relevant:
http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-0... [fsf.org]
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licen... [fsf.org]
http://apple.stackexchange.com... [stackexchange.com] (see 2nd answer)
Essentially, if you do not hold the copyright for the GPL'd work you are including in your iPhone App that you want to put on the Apple App Store, then you're SOL.... the App Store agreements are incompatible with that (GPL says, "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein", but the the Mac App Store Terms of Service explicitly add other restrictions, such as "you may only install the software on five approved devices"). You might be able to get permission from the works authors, but that permission would be to distribute said code under a non-GPL license (possibly 3 clause BSD?)
Indeed it probably doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
No license: default copyright. No-one is allowed to redistribute without your express permission.
The dependencies I assume will be distributed within your package; and I assume their licenses in turn allow this, as this are open source licenses.
If so, you would be able to choose any license you like for your code - or indeed simply nothing special at all - and choose based on your preferences/philosophy on the level of freedoms given for use of your work.
Re: (Score:2)
No license: default copyright. No-one is allowed to redistribute without your express permission.
No license is worse than that. It means nobody knows what the terms of your use of this software are. For all anybody knows, you actually agreed to something outlandish like the deed to your house in exchange for the right to make a backup copy. You can't prove otherwise, because you can't present a copy of this "no license".
If a company ends up with such software and an audit happens, there will be major problems. So I don't ever ever use someone else's software if it didn't come with some kind of licens
Re: (Score:2)
What is the legal value of such an included license, really? You don't have the issuer's signature on it. You could argue it's "signed" if you download from the maker's web site, but not if you're downloading from a third party source, where the package could have been altered.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You're simply distributing without a license. This means that you can be sued for monetary damages and be told to stop doing what you're doing (and if you don't comply things get worse). You can only agree to license terms by agreeing to license terms.
No GPL (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No GPL (Score:4, Informative)
You are allowed to use it. You choose not to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are allowed to use it. You choose not to.
I do not intend to re-write the same code twice. My personal time is finite.
If my employer says I am not allowed to use it, that is not a choice.
and the argument "It's helpful for the community if people's useful modifications to your program are made public" ... well if I am forced to use another solution then this potentially helpful code will not be written for your project in the first place, so there is 0% chance of it being made public because it will not exist.
Remember: Sometimes allowing more people
Re: (Score:2)
Remember: Sometimes allowing more people to play has benefits, even if they do take their bat and ball and go home at the end.
And this is what we see with Apple's OSX, sure they haven't released all the source code for the operating system but since many of its parts are built on permissive open source licenses rather than restrictive ones those parts can be used in the closed source operating system but also released as source for other people to use.
For example Safari is not open source but we sure get a lot of contributions to WebKit which is used in lots of places.
Re:No GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
You've been misinformed. I don't blame you, but you've apparently never read the GPL. It explicitly says:
Thus you are free to download and use it for any purpose, provided you do not redistribute it or derive software from it. Pretty clear.
Perhaps you meant to say there's a lot of GPL software you'd like to incorporate into your own software but you can't because of the license. You would be correct. And you won't get any sympathy either. As they say, write your own code!
Re: (Score:2)
I think he said what he meant to say, e.g. if you're an author, please consider using a different license than the GPL, because some people (e.g. him; yes, people are somewhat narcissistic that way, go figure) won't be able to utilize it otherwise.
He's not looking for sympathy. He's looking for code. Believe it or not, a lo
Re: (Score:2)
No one owes him anything. It may not matter to the GPL'd code's author whether this guy wants to use it in his own code or not. There are lots of reasons for writing code.
It's absolutely not a stupid line. The guy who GPL'd the code wrote it so he can do what he wants with it. That is his right. Surely this other developer can write his own code too? Of course GPL'd people don't use that line with end users. After all they are free to use the software however they see fit. That's what the GPL says.
As
Re: (Score:2)
Who said otherwise? Why do you feel compelled to set up a strawman?
That's absolutely true. But it may matter, so it's a great thing for the guy to say "if you do this, I can't use your code." Unless you don't believe in freedom of speech.
Sure, and I don't want to discourage anybody from writing code, and if you feel you need to us
Re: (Score:2)
Let me analyse this:
Please do not license it under an L/GPL license. There's a lot of software I would like to use, but am not legally allowed to because it uses a GPL license. It sucks.
This has one of two meanings:
The first (kind) meaning is that the OP is merely astonishingly ignorant and believes that using GPL software like Linux, GCC, LibreOffice and so on somehow "traps" him under the GPL. I'm honestly not sure what he believes, but it's probably something along the lines of everything that touches th
Re: (Score:2)
Completely unimaginative, naive, binary thinking. Is it just possible that someone might like to contribute back -- might even have significant contributions that they can and will make to whatever package they use -- but that for some reason outside their control, they cannot divulge everything th
Re: (Score:2)
Completely unimaginative, naive, binary thinking. Is it just possible that someone might like to contribute back -- might even have significant contributions that they can and will make to whatever package they use -- but that for some reason outside their control, they cannot divulge everything they are working on?
Yeah, rationality and reading comprehension are such binary things. He was talking about "using" not contributing back. I can only go on saying what he means not what someone liek you believes w
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently they are.
If you would just apply the tiniest bit of thought to this, you would realize that if he is not allowed to use something (because of other conditions placed on him), there is no reason for him to learn it well enough to contribute back to it. It's a horse-and-cart, or chicken-and-egg thing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you can't do that, then you're an anti-social jackass that should be shunned.
Nice try, Richard Stallman's alias.
I bet that the corporate, proprietary world has done more good for free software than free software has. After all, someone has to pay the salaries of programmers, right? I've personally been involved in huge numbers of projects where developer's exposure to open source projects, within the context of a proprietary-only workplace, has enabled the skills and exposure to those open source projects, with said developers going on to work on derivative, open source projects i
Re: (Score:2)
I bet that the corporate, proprietary world has done more good for free software than free software has.
Citation needed.
After all, someone has to pay the salaries of programmers, right?
Sure. But there are other ways to pay programmers [makeuseof.com] than by the sale of proprietary software.
I've personally been involved in huge numbers of projects where developer's exposure to open source projects, within the context of a proprietary-only workplace, has enabled the skills and exposure to those open source projects, with said developers going on to work on derivative, open source projects in their spare time.
And you don't think the benefit flows in the other direction too?
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
No citation needed, it's an assertion based upon the most rudimentary understanding of economics. Of course, I might be wrong.
Sure. But there are other ways to pay programmers [makeuseof.com] than by the sale of proprietary software.
You are correct. However, all of the points referenced therein make presumptions about open source software that was already mature. How do you think such open source software becomes mature? By developers with programming skills. How do those developers gain programming skills? Hint: not solely through open source projects.
And you don't think the benefit flows in the other direction too?
Of course it does. There are many mutually-beneficial
Re: (Score:3)
I've always envied people who can see the universe in black and white.
It scares the shit out of me whenever they get any sort of power, though.
Because they prove over and over that they are incapable of rational thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Or in this case, it doens't because you're apparently completely ignorant of the GPL.
I really don't know why I have to repeat this. It'sd been said in this thread numerous time, repeated in the past many times all over the internet and it's even on the FSF's website.
You don't have to agree to the GPL to use the software.
Ergo, there is no possibly way in which the GPL can affect mere use of the software.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I disagree that the only valid license to use ever is the GPL, it's simply because I'm ignorant of it. Yes, you're just as insane as the guy I just responded to.
Why did you feel compelled to repeat that "pem is ignorant of the GPL"? Does that help your cause? Or maybe that's not what you meant. Does a lack of clarity help your cause?
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, the GPL FAQ suggests the use of a more permissive license in some cases (such as code so short that the length of the GPL becomes cumbersome).
Re: (Score:2)
So if I disagree that the only valid license to use ever is the GPL, it's simply because I'm ignorant of it. Yes, you're just as insane as the guy I just responded to.
Nope. Dunno how you read that.
But your reasons are based on a completely flawed understanding of the GPL.
Why did you feel compelled to repeat that "pem is ignorant of the GPL"? Does that help your cause? Or maybe that's not what you meant. Does a lack of clarity help your cause?
I don't know what cause you think I have? Why should I be patient
Re: (Score:2)
No, I came out to call out this:
Which, if you really believe, makes it impossible to have rational conversation with you. The comment about a sociopath is just gravy, showing that you are not interested in real debate.
This shows the same thing. So I'll honor that request to not have a real debate, despite the fact th
Re: (Score:2)
No, you don't have a good understanding.
Because you don't need to agree to the GPL to use it. This is extremely well known and is clearly stated on the FSF website, as well as being obvious from the GPL itself. Therefore there are no good reasons not to use GPL software.
If you want to distribute GPL software to people and place extra restrictions on it, well you can't. That is literally the only thing it prevents. Note how there's nothing about using the software in there. It only matters if and when the ti
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know jack about my understanding.
When people discuss "using" a program, they are usually simply talking about using the program.
When people discuss "using" library code, then yes, often -- in fact, usually -- distribution is implied. When people talk about "using" GPL code and complain they can't, then it's awfully condescending of you to (as you keep doing) assume they don't know what the fuck th
Re: (Score:3)
Please do not license it under an L/GPL license. There's a lot of software I would like to use, but am not legally allowed to because it uses a GPL license.
You must be a sociopath then, or work for one.
That's really the only reason to not use something with a copyleft license.
No, another very valid reason not to use copyleft code is because you are developing proprietary software where you do not intend to release the source code. Do you truly believe everyone developing closed source proprietary software is a sociopath? I am not sure even Richard Stallman thinks that, and I thought his was the most extreme opinion in the free software community.
I am developing software that takes use of many open libraries, but only ones that are truly open. This is because I currently intend t
Re: (Score:2)
Stallman believes that proprietary software is immoral. I suspect he thinks people who are not sociopaths can do immoral things.
There are some things F/OSS excels at. However, it doesn't do well in niche markets, or areas that programmers tend not to consider fun or interesting. Eliminating proprietary software would make the world a lot poorer, and there's no reason to think F/OSS would pick up the gap.
WTFPL (Score:3, Informative)
GPL/BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't want corporations to take advantage of your software without giving back, then use GPL.
BSD expands usage at the cost of community; GPL increases community at the cost of usage. Both approaches are valid.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want your software to be used by as many people/corporations as possible, use BSD.
That seems to be the general public consensus.
Personally, if I'm in that situation I use CC0 [fsf.org] instead. Its effectively Public Domain, with a completely permissive fallback license for areas where Public Domain isn't possible (eg: arguably the USA). The BSD is a lot of legalese in an attempt to accomplish the same thing. Even after all that effort, some versions of it actually fail and render the code GPL incompatible. Seeing the BSD is a huge drag, because I have to scan the entire text of the damn license
Re: (Score:2)
Increasing the community sounds all well and good, but I would prefer a quality community over a quantity community. Some of those GPL folks are real wing nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlicense (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlicense, and done. http://unlicense.org/ [unlicense.org]
Depends of what you mean by "Use" (Score:4, Informative)
If by "Use" you mean: Copy/paste sections of GPLed code, then yea, you are forced to use the GPL (this also applies to Read-Memorized-Retyped).
If by use you mean: I link to some GPLed libraries. Or: I invoke some GPLed executable to do some work. Or: I send some IPC message to some GPLed process then you can use pretty much any licence you may well please.
For code I develop for commercial use (either if I want to turn it into a product, or if I am developing for a Third party) I prefer BSD/MIT/Apache.
For code I develop as a hobby, or as a service to the community, I preffer the GPL (v2).
Also, bear in mind two things:
* If you use a substantial amount of GPL code, the community frowns upon using a non GPL license.
* But, apples AppStore has had troubles with GPLed applications in the past.
Choose Wisely.
Re: (Score:2)
Linking GPL code is considered the same as copying in the source code. The library has to be released under the LGPL to be used by non-GPL source.
But you are correct about invoking canned binaries of GPL products or sending IPC messages to a GPL product, provided you're not using the GPL messaging libraries provided with the product, but rolling your own which happen to be compatible at the messaging layer. But I'm pretty sure your messaging code would have to be written in a different language as well
Use a well-known license! (Score:2)
Whatever you do, please please please use a well-known license. I'm am completely sick of having to read and grok screens full of leagalese and then go to The FSF list of licenses [gnu.org] to see if there's something important I missed. I'm sure every license has some nuance that makes it better for some purpose or other, but I don't care.
While I understand the attraction of BSD (and its zillion variants), I've found that I can cover all use-cases for my own work with one of three licenses (in order of stringency)
Why I chose the the BSD. (Score:2)
I don't sell the code I sell the support.
I release everything I work on under BSD and if a company has questions about it I have contact information and an hourly rate available for support. If a company takes it and runs with it (Tivo) then it's not like it was something I was going to get around doing anyway.
If they don't want to pay for support and their product is good enough, a competitor will.
I don't lose out on anything. My code gets used (what I wanted and why I released it) and in 5-10 years if som
FSF was very non-specific, and probably wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
The FSF post didn't say either what terms of the license they thought Apple was violating, nor why they think distributing via the app store is any different than distributing via the post office.
If I mail GPL software via the postal service, I have to comply with the GPL, which mainly means I have to include an offer to provide source code upon request. The postal service doesn't have to do ANYTHING regarding the license, they are a third party facilitating my distribution. It could be argued that Apple
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, yes they did. Read the follow-up piece linked from the post (https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement), and it is specific that the issue is that Apple's Terms of Service add restrictions beyond the GPL. That is prohibited by the GPL; otherwise people could completely circumvent the GPL by adding their own license on top of it to take away all of the rights granted to you by the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
AC's post should be modded up. In case it isn't, here it is:
Uh, yes they did. Read the follow-up piece linked from the post (https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement), and it is specific that the issue is that Apple's Terms of Service add restrictions beyond the GPL. That is prohibited by the GPL; otherwise people could completely circumvent the GPL by adding their own license on top of it to take away all of the rights granted to you by the GPL.
Re: (Score:3)
The FSF post didn't say either what terms of the license they thought Apple was violating, nor why they think distributing via the app store is any different than distributing via the post office.
The way copyright law defines distribution it essentially means transmit, like over radio and TV or down a wire. There's a very limited exception carved out for passing along transitory copies unaltered so each node on the Internet isn't liable for everything passing through just the source and potentially the sink. Moving a copy physically around never invokes copyright, which is why Apple is on the hook and the post office not. And Apple's software storing it on the user device leads to vicarious and cont
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot simpler than that. Apple wants (a certain amount of) control over what they distribute in the App store. The GPL doesn't let them have it.
I haven't read up on exactly what beef they have with the app store's terms
Don't worry, An AC on this thread already provided a useful link. [fsf.org]
GPL specifically allows source on a different serv (Score:2)
The GPL requires that the program include an offer to provide the source code, either on a physical medium or on a server. It does NOT require that it be distributed via the same server or service that binary is on. v3 makes that very clear, saying:
"the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)"
Putting the binary on the App store and the source on Github is exactly what that covers - provided that in or "next to" the binary copy you m
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure. Lets pander to the flavor of the month corporation just because they are the trendy thing today. Let's forget about the DECADES of work and progress that has gone into the collective body of Free Software. Let's also give a big "fuck you" to all of the nice contributors while we are at it.
It's Apple that's the newcomer playing the jerk imposing restrictions that are entirely unnecessary.
Freedom is not a Mad Max free-for-all where Apple can try to be the boss of the Thunderdome.
Re: (Score:2)
Memory fades fast. A lot of people forget the environment and conditions that spawned the GPL and the huge amount of code released under it. Things are on average better than then in no small part to the GPL and the early efforts, so the GPL will wane for now.
It won't stay that way for ever, and when things take a turn for the worse, the FSF will still be there.
Re: (Score:2)