Torvalds: GPLv2 'A Big Part' of Why Linux Spread, Companies Getting Involved 'Hugely Important' (zdnet.com) 144
Five years ago Linus Torvalds commemorated Linux's 25th anniversary in an interview with ZDNet's Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols. Now that Linux is celebrating its 30th birthday, Vaughan-Nichols interviewed Torvalds again, who makes an important philosophical point:
Trying to look at the bigger picture, Torvalds now thinks the period in early 1992 — when Linux switched to using the Gnu Public License version 2 (GPLv2) — was especially important. He recalls, "It wasn't the original license, but I'm convinced it's a big part of why Linux became so widespread. Not everybody loves the GPL, and I've had my own issues with the FSF [Free Software Foundation], but I do think the GPLv2 has been a huge deal, and people shouldn't dismiss the licensing issues."
He adds:
"I think the companies getting involved has been hugely important — and that may sound so obvious as to be trite and stupid, but some corners of the open-source community have been fairly negative to any commercial involvement."
Torvalds points out that from its earliest days Linux has experienced "fairly continual" interest from major companies.
The interview also revisits Linux's version control systems and the name Torvalds had originally chosen for the operating system back in 1991. ("Freax," for "Free Unix.") But 10 years ago, the same reporter got a surprise when he'd asked Torvalds where he thought Linux would be on its 40th birthday. Torvalds' answer?
"Bah. I don't plan that far ahead. I can barely keep my calendar for the next week in mind. I really have no idea."
So this week Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols instead asked Torvalds how he's envisioning his own future: Looking ahead, Torvalds sees himself keeping on. "I'm 51 years young, I enjoy what I'm doing. What would I do if I didn't do Linux? Puttering around in the garden? Not bloody likely.
Slashdot reader juul_advocate shares some context. Torvalds was also contacted by IT Wire to get his thoughts on the 30th birthday of Linux. "There's literally a few people who are still active and around that got involved in '91..." Torvalds told them: "I like having been around for that long, and it's also nice how many other people have actually been around for almost that long...
"But I just don't have anything new to say about it, I'm afraid. And while today is an anniversary date, it's not even the only one. This was the anniversary of the first public announcement, but it wasn't actually the actual first code drop. That came later — 17 September.
"And even that second anniversary isn't the 'last' anniversary, because the Linux 0.01 code drop on 17 September was only privately announced to people who had shown some interest from the first announcement.
"So the first actually public and real *announced* code drop was 5 October 1991, which is when 0.02 was dropped. So I actually have three anniversaries, and they are all equally valid in my mind."
He adds:
"I think the companies getting involved has been hugely important — and that may sound so obvious as to be trite and stupid, but some corners of the open-source community have been fairly negative to any commercial involvement."
Torvalds points out that from its earliest days Linux has experienced "fairly continual" interest from major companies.
The interview also revisits Linux's version control systems and the name Torvalds had originally chosen for the operating system back in 1991. ("Freax," for "Free Unix.") But 10 years ago, the same reporter got a surprise when he'd asked Torvalds where he thought Linux would be on its 40th birthday. Torvalds' answer?
"Bah. I don't plan that far ahead. I can barely keep my calendar for the next week in mind. I really have no idea."
So this week Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols instead asked Torvalds how he's envisioning his own future: Looking ahead, Torvalds sees himself keeping on. "I'm 51 years young, I enjoy what I'm doing. What would I do if I didn't do Linux? Puttering around in the garden? Not bloody likely.
Slashdot reader juul_advocate shares some context. Torvalds was also contacted by IT Wire to get his thoughts on the 30th birthday of Linux. "There's literally a few people who are still active and around that got involved in '91..." Torvalds told them: "I like having been around for that long, and it's also nice how many other people have actually been around for almost that long...
"But I just don't have anything new to say about it, I'm afraid. And while today is an anniversary date, it's not even the only one. This was the anniversary of the first public announcement, but it wasn't actually the actual first code drop. That came later — 17 September.
"And even that second anniversary isn't the 'last' anniversary, because the Linux 0.01 code drop on 17 September was only privately announced to people who had shown some interest from the first announcement.
"So the first actually public and real *announced* code drop was 5 October 1991, which is when 0.02 was dropped. So I actually have three anniversaries, and they are all equally valid in my mind."
Been using Linux since 0.9x (Score:2)
I worked at Data General in the 90s. We had recently gotten Sun workstations for schematic entry, and they were pretty much just dropped on our desks. No training, and we were each responsible for management of our own systems, which were connected directly to The Internet (it was a kinder, gentler place then...at least until Canter & Siegel sent the first spam).
Having a PC at home, and having grown somewhat attached to Unix, I wondered if there was something like it for the PC. We were using Xenix for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Different story than yours (DECUnix->IBM->DEC VMS->SunOS->Linux). But one thing may be common. Do you notice anywhere in my path that includes microsoft? Nope, never used it.
That doesn't appear to be a commonality in your stories. The GP said they turned their PC into something more capable than using DOS, which implies that they had a basis for comparison, and that they were using some other OS (probably DOS) on the PC before loading Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you didn't miss anything worth experiencing unless you like games. I used then and still use Microsoft OSes, but I've used many many operating systems over the years that had nothing to do with billy boy. The only thing I've used that was less rewarding than DOS was CP/M, although frankly even it was capable of doing things I wanted to do like connect to a remote system (too bad my CP/M machine was a Kaypro 4, and it emulated an adm3a...) Windows has had its ups and downs, and frankly only Windows 7 h
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I find Linux + KDE a whole lot more usable than Windows these says. So much easier to have it work the way you want, so many fewer WTF moments, so many fewer nags, and oh those mandatory Windows reboots. Hate hate hate those mandatory Windows reboots.
Linux made GPL, GPL did not make Linux (Score:3)
Having a PC at home, and having grown somewhat attached to Unix, I wondered if there was something like it for the PC. We were using Xenix for a project, but it was expensive, and I was looking for free. So, after discovering the time sink that was Usenet, I ended up at comp.os.minix...and discovered Linux.
And that is the real story. In those early days we could get Linux, we could not get BSD thanks to the 1992 lawsuit USL v. BSDi. It was not Linux's GPL, it was the void that Linux moved into, A free Unix on a commodity PC.
Without the lawsuit a BSD distro may have gotten the traction in that arena. 1992 was like today, people wanted Unix on a PC, few gave a crap about the politics of the license.
The GPL road on the coat tails of Linux, Linux did not ride on the coat tails of the GPL.
Retirement? (Score:2)
“ Looking ahead, Torvalds sees himself keeping on. "I'm 51 years young, I enjoy what I'm doing. What would I do if I didn't do Linux? Puttering around in the garden? Not bloody likely.”
Yea, at 64 I’m a computer hobbiest that gets paid for poking around computers. My wife and I have discussed retirement and she’s also, “not bloody likely”. Just because I’m not getting paid any more, doesn’t mean I’ll stop screwing around with computers. :)
[John]
Of course he'd say that. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But chronological correlation is not causality.
Numerous major contributors to Linux have outright stated that the specific reason they chose to participate in Linux development over one of the *BSDs was the GPL. So frankly, we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the GPL is one of the key reasons for Linux's success. Well, I say we, but some people like yourself are in deep denial because you are trying to sell yourself a line of bullshit about how sharing is bad, and the user doesn't matter.
The GPL recognizes that software exists for the user, and if
Re: (Score:2)
.
--- but some people like yourself are in deep denial because you are trying to sell yourself a line of bullshit about how sharing is bad, and the user doesn't matter. ---
You have no idea the reasons for my opinion. Indeed, the above attempt to state the reasons for my opinion shows just how clueless your view is.
Unix on a PC please, hold the politics. (Score:2)
But chronological correlation is not causality.
Numerous major contributors to Linux have outright stated that the specific reason they chose to participate in Linux development over one of the *BSDs was the GPL
Others have stated that if BSD had not been tied up in court they probably would have gone BSD not Linux. The USL v. BSDi lawsuit made Linux, not the GPL. The lawsuit left Linux the sole occupier of the Free Unix on a commodity PC space. That's all most people wanted, unix on their PC. They didn't care about the underlying license, they just wanted the functionality. Pretty much the same majority sentiment then and today, Just give me Unix on a PC, hold the politics.
Linus Torvalds empowered many careers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Linus Torvalds empowered many trillions of dollars of economic advancement. Not an exaggeration in the slightest.
World would be the same, just BSD (Score:2)
If it were not for Linux I would never have been able to be exposed too so much advanced technology so early in my career.
Not really. There would have been a brief delay due to the USL v. BSDi lawsuit. Then the BSD distros would have been unleashed. The world would be pretty much the same.
I would have had to spend one more year dialing into the VAX running BSD at school.
Notice he didn't say GPL v3? (Score:2)
Re:GPL, FSF, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL v2 is probably one of the most important documents in the world now. Stallman changed the direction of computing history.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just computing history, but many walks of life including society, industry and technology well beyond computer nerds. "Open source" (opportunistically coined by Eric Raymond to describe GPL plus non-copyleft) has become a household word. Who woulda thunk it?
GPL, FSF, - commercial is the whole idea (Score:3)
Have you read any of Stallman's political writings? / He's no right-winger.
People keep claiming this, however almost the entire innovation of the GPL is that it guarantees commercial use. There were plenty of share around / non commercial licenses before that. There were plenty of unrestricted licenses which then people then placed restrictions on when releasing products based on the software. What the GPL did was stopped people from putting the
You don't have to believe me. This is directly in the FSF's definition of what Free Software is [gnu.org].
Re:GPL, FSF, - commercial is the whole idea (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that is not any innovation at all of the GPL. Commercial use was already the norm, and guaranteed by multiple licenses, including normal commercial licenses. MIT and BSD style licenses allow not only for commercial use, but for taking the code, the whole of the code, and keeping it for oneself without sharing it back.
What GPL innovated was that commercial use was fine - but REQUIRED sharing the code back. That was the win with using GPL. That nobody could just take your code, use it, and then not give their improvements back.
Re: GPL, FSF, - commercial is the whole idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, you do. Whoever receives a binary from you, no matter whether you get paid or not, has to receive the code as well, under GPL license with no further restrictions added.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: GPL, FSF, - commercial is the whole idea (Score:5, Informative)
You do not have to publish or share improvements to Linux as long as you are not selling the resulting code.
"Selling" does not matter. What matters is distributing derivative binaries to 3rd parties. If you do, you also must make the source available. You are also entirely few to take GPL code, modify and build upon it and keep all the changes to yourself, as long as you don't distribute them to outside parties.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As explained to me, the BSD licence allows you to use the software "to do what the hell you like with it, including, but not limited to, killing time and making babies, or vice versa"*. (BSD is closely related to LSD).
The modern wording is subtly different due to lawyers being involved.
I have released software under BSD and GPL. They meet different requirements.
If you have ever strangled your neighbours dog with the tape from a Unix distro,
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is not any innovation at all of the GPL. Commercial use was already the norm, and guaranteed by multiple licenses, including normal commercial licenses. MIT and BSD style licenses allow not only for commercial use, but for taking the code, the whole of the code, and keeping it for oneself without sharing it back.
What GPL innovated was that commercial use was fine - but REQUIRED sharing the code back. That was the win with using GPL. That nobody could just take your code, use it, and then not give their improvements back.
None of those licenses protect commercial use. I can take a MIT licensed piece of software. Give you only the binary with a few small changes and tell you that you have to pay me if you want to sell it further. With non-commercial software I'm not allowed to change the terms for you, however you aren't allowed to sell it anyway. Only with GPL software is your right, as a recipient of the software, to sell on the software protected.
Re: (Score:2)
WTH are you even on about. I can take an MIT licensed piece of software and use it commercially. At that point, it is no longer MIT licensed, so rather self evidently that resulting software does not fall under MIT licensing terms.
That GPL can not be removed by its own terms has nothing to do with "protecting commercial use", and it also does nothing to actually PROTECT commercial use - since by the GPL terms, if you sell me a piece of software with GPL code in it, I must receive that code under a GPL licen
Re: (Score:3)
Have you read any of Stallman's political writings? / He's no right-winger.
People keep claiming this, however almost the entire innovation of the GPL is that it guarantees commercial use.
That's seriously false. The GPL has at least two major innovations. One is requiring that you distribute source code to anyone to whom you distribute a binary. The other is not permitting inclusion of GPL code in a work which is not GPL'd.
You don't have to believe me.
I don't.
This is directly in the FSF's definition of what Free Software is.
Yeah, they say it has to be available for commercial use in order to be Free software, because placing restrictions on use of the software reduces the freedom of the software, and Free Software is about making software free so that it (and by proxy, its freedom) is
Re:GPL, FSF, - commercial is the whole idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Without the corporate interests behind Linux it would have died by now.
I disagree. The constant upstream flow of code, just from the first contributors, accumulated real value that everyone shared. Because of that, it found its way into universities and hobbyists such that it created a community dependent on this cheap but highly valuable thing. Because universities (and thus their students) and hobbyists used it, they go into companies knowing more Linux compared to other UNIXes. If corporations want to hire people without having to train them expensively on proprietary UNIXes, they pretty much have to hire people who know Linux and trained themselves in Linux essentially for free, and therefore use Linux in company.
Sooner or later, Linux was always going to gain a critical mass of activity/manpower and value accumulation that cannot be ignored by any corporation. Even Microsoft could not ignore Linux in the end, but become a platinum member to boot.
Re: (Score:2)
Big corporations made big contributions to Linux to make it more suitable for big corporations, which led to more big corporations using Linux and making more big contributions. Around three quarters of Linux is written by programmers working for corporations.
Linux might have continued to exist, but it would not be what it is today in any sense, and computing would likely be much less freer for that — and without the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the GPL pre-dates Linux. There was lots of other GPL software out there - all of those build tools, editors, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Making restrictions on use doesn't actually make copyleft stronger. It makes it weaker, by reducing uptake.
Yep, this is the same reason there is the GCC Runtime Library Exception and the same reason the Linux kernel has the license preamble about linking to the kernel. Those two are probably the biggest and most widely used free software projects and they need explicit exceptions to the GPL because otherwise it would be too restrictive and would drive away users and contributors.
Despite what they claim about how bad non-free software is RMS and the FSF could have ensured that all binaries produced with GCC were
Re: (Score:2)
Have you read any of Stallman's political writings? / He's no right-winger.
People keep claiming this, however almost the entire innovation of the GPL is that it guarantees commercial use./quote> That has nothing to do with whether he's a right-winger or not.
If anything, I'd say he's a "left" libertarian.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, I'd say he's a "left" libertarian.
I think at the point that you have to start talking about "left" libertarians, your whole left-right divide has broken down and you need to move to more sophisticated models of politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"...almost the entire innovation of the GPL is that it guarantees commercial use..."
LOL what complete bullshit.
"There were plenty of unrestricted licenses which then people then placed restrictions on when releasing products based on the software."
Yes, but those restrictions applied only to derivative products, not the source being discussed.
What the GPL did what impose its restrictions on derivative products.
'“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”. On the contrary, a free pro
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but not guarantee it, which is what you claim.
On the absolute contrary. Once software is released under the GPL then every subsequent person who receives it gets a guarantee that they can use ot for commercial uses. With BSD software, the first person can do so, however if they wish, they can change the software and distribute the new parts under almost any other license, including one which bans commercial use. Only the GPL and other similar copyleft licenses guarantee that all recipients can use and sell the software.
Re: (Score:2)
With BSD software, the first person can do so, however if they wish, they can change the software and distribute the new parts under almost any other license, including one which bans commercial use.
Yes you can create a "derivative work", a different thing that you distribute under different terms. It doesn't change the original.
You may not have the original source code, just the binary. The original may not work on your system. The original may be missing the key feature which is the reason that you needed it. You may happily commit to using the software and then, just as you finally win your big contract five years down the line, your customer may find a critical security bug in your software and, having worked those five years you may find yourself unable to fix it. You may find that the original authors have all been bought
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Left" and "Right" are directions, not destinations.
Whether someone is a lefty or righty depends on where their political views are in the Overton window [wikipedia.org] of their own society.
If someone believes in expanding the role of government as an instrument of social justice, reducing military expenses, and greater social tolerance of private behavior, compared to the prevailing policies in their own society, then they are a leftie.
Whether an American is on the left or right has nothing to do with Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
"So he must have been quite gobsmacked when the leftist cancel machine turned on him..."
It wasn't any "leftist cancel machine", it was reasonable people.
Your comments say a lot about you though.
Re: GPL, FSF, etc. (Now you're learning) BSD Baby (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are BSD licences better?
Not better or worse, but as an example we have BSD based Mac OS, which forms the basis for Apple's success.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And the BSDs have no success in return.
I don't know, MS has had a lot of success with BSDs...
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond announcements, no one would be able to make that statement. It's like saying no teenager jerks off because you don't hear a lot about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone who looks at BSD code commits and BSD funding can make that statement. Check how much of what Apple does comes back into the BSD code base and gets used for BSD.
Given that several key BSD developers were hired by Apple, and during their time their contributed nothing to BSD, it's pretty clear which way the equation leans.
Re: (Score:3)
And this isn't to say that Linux is of a better design or code quality than the BSDs. You just can't deny the Linux receives much more contribution in terms of code and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"But the BSDs themselves don't benefit from it."
Which is mostly clearly NOT the goal of the BSD license. You are letting RMS's personal goal define benefit.
"And those BSD-derived products and code eventually disappear, and no one benefits."
Except for the enormous benefit that was received during BSD's entire existence! Again, your definition of benefit comes from RMS.
"You just can't deny the Linux receives much more contribution in terms of code and money..."
Of course, but you're assuming that's because o
Re: (Score:3)
Which is mostly clearly NOT the goal of the BSD license. You are letting RMS's personal goal define benefit.
No, we are discussing about commercial fitness. The ability to survive in the evolutionary free marketplace. In Darwinian terms, BSD licenses are unfit and unable to reproduce themselves whilst GPL based software like Linux manges to cooperate with commercial entities and propagate it's commercial genes. Companies like Apple treat BSD software like prey that they eat, whilst companies like RedHat view GPL software as a way of building their future.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is mostly clearly NOT the goal of the BSD license.
Actually, it IS, according to all the GPL haters out there. The claim is that because BSD is "more" commercial friendly, it would magically pick up an even bigger user base (and contributor base) compared to the "restricted" GPL. According to BSD ideologues/GPL haters, BSD is supposed to bring kumbayah synergy between corporations and users and developers.
Instead, what we see is corporations and hobbyist developers rewriting the wheel with lots of independent BSD licensed projects that they control, but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, what we see is Linux and Git dominating everything in commercial software, even when clearly they are not always the best option.
You need to get out more. That's easily disprovable and laughable as a serious assertion. BSD code is literally everywhere. It's in Windows, OSX, IOS, and a zillion other places. It's been spread all over the place because BSD sockets are the de-facto standard way of doing TCP/IP networking and most of that code came straight out of 4.3 BSD Tahoe.
Instead, what we see is corporations and hobbyist developers rewriting the wheel with lots of independent BSD licensed projects that they control, but pretending they are open source friendly, when all they are doing is freeloading off people.
See, that's the problem. You think what they are doing is "freeloading". I call what they are doing "exactly what I intended" when I slap a BSD license on somethin
Re: (Score:2)
So, I'll kind of put your question back to you. You seem to want the BSD license so that developers can restrict the choices of their users in future. That's the main thing that it gives you over the GPL. "How is restricting choice helping innovation?"
The answer is that sometimes one person's choice affects another person's choice.
As you state, BSD code is in Windows, OSX, IOS. However the BSD developers get no benefit from that and cannot choose what they do with that code. Micfosoft gets a benefit an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of this is a measure of BSD success.
The BSD codebase has been extremely influential, it's licensing contributed to that.
Re: (Score:2)
The BSD codebase has been extremely influential, it's licensing contributed to that.
This is absolutely true, in that both parts are true. However, what's also true is that Linux has been more influential, and that its licensing contributed to that. And it seems a bit ironic at first, because what you'd expect is that the big boys would put their energy into the system that they didn't have to give back to. And many or most of the big commercial Unix guys except AT&T itself at some point sold some form of BSD on at least some of their platforms; SunOS4 was BSD, IBM had aos and later an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL people say the dumbest shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Creators tend to like copyleft more, corporate droids much prefer permissive because it permits them to be dicks while enjoying the fruits of others' labor.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say the BSD's are what one wants if one wants a standard to propagate. For example if one comes up with a TCP/IP stack or crypto library that everyone should use, commercial or free, then the BSD is perfect for that.* GPL however is if one wants an ideology to propagate. If commercial benefits then so be it, but that's not the goal.
*The lessor-GPL was an attempt to fulfill this role via segregation.
Re: GPL, FSF, etc. (Now you're learning) BSD Baby (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes an idea can be locked behind an ideology as much as by patents. Remember the whole idea against patenting code is that ideas want to be free.
Re: (Score:2)
GPL however is if one wants an ideology to propagate.
I mean, we're in the comments section of an article discussing Linus Torvalds. You really want to accuse him, noted FSF hater, of wanting to propagate an ideology?
Re: (Score:2)
KHTML is at the basis of WebKit and Chromium.
And Safari, you know that closed-source browser?
And isn't it wonderful that Google can't close up Chromium?
What are you on about? The Google-authored part of Chromium is licensed under BSD.
You think they wouldn't? If so, why?
Because of the benefit of the open source community, they could if they wanted to just like Apple has with Safari. But it's also the same reason they could close up Bionic (because it's based on BSD code) but they don't.
Re: GPL, FSF, etc. (Now you're learning) BSD Baby (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The rendering engine of Safari is open, because it can't be closed.
You're moving the goalposts, the only bits that are LGPL are WebCore and JavascriptCore, the rest of WebKit is BSD and the rest of Safari is closed source so I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make here.
Re: GPL, FSF, etc. (Now you're learning) BSD Baby (Score:2)
Re: GPL, FSF, etc. (Now you're learning) BSD Baby (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Dumbass. Doesn't understand the meaning of 'communism', or the GPL.
The GPL is basically a commercial transaction, you get my code but if you want to change and distribute it, you pay me - in code.
BSD is more communistic than the GPL but only in the sense that the equator is closer to the sun than the poles.
Re: (Score:2)
GPLv3 is for sure Communist bullshit. That's exactly what Linus is getting at and why the BSD license is superior to any of the GPLs. It's the strain of communism running through the GPL (and esp in v3) that drags it down.
You say that as if it were a bad thing. It's a matter of the right to free association, which you seem to be against by your accusation of communism and the negative connotation s associated with the concept. The GPL is a strictly voluntary agreement, no one is forced to use it for their code. You have plenty of other choices under which to license your own code. However, much like a commune, if you chose to use it you must abide by the agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's a matter of the right to free association..."
Is it? What about the GPL more considers a "right to free association" than other licenses? What about communism is against a "right to free association"?
GPLv3 was created to target commercial businesses that prevented you from modifying their hardware. In other words, the GPL's communistic nature was extended to apply to the hardware executing the GPL software as well. This has NOTHING to do with "free association".
"The GPL is a strictly voluntary agre
Re: (Score:2)
"It's a matter of the right to free association..."
Is it? What about the GPL more considers a "right to free association" than other licenses? What about communism is against a "right to free association"?
Just because free association is associated with one license doesn't mean others aren't. It's not a zero sum game. As for communism, the OP used that term to disparage the GPL as if you are forced to use it, and only it, for code.
GPLv3 was created to target commercial businesses that prevented you from modifying their hardware. In other words, the GPL's communistic nature was extended to apply to the hardware executing the GPL software as well. This has NOTHING to do with "free association".
Sure it does. You are free to accept the GPL or not use GPL'd code. The requirements of the GPL are irrelevant to you right to use or not use it, i.e. free association. Even so, the GPL is not communistic in that the code, which would be the means of production, is not communa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a terrible thing, but I never implied it was involuntary. My assertion is that they have a communist ideology,
I think you misunderstand communist ideology. If it was communist, the means of production, i.e. the code, would be owned collectively by all programmers. That is clearly not the case, as the code's copyright is held by either the original coder or the entity it is assigned to by the original coder. The idea of private ownership of the means of production is a very capitalistic concept, which is inherent in the GPL's approach and ability to license the code.
which is pretty clear and easy to see in the "viral clause" of the GPL. It's less pronounced in v2 versus v3, but that's they key change: more coercion for downstream re-use. BSD is less coercion and a public domain license is the least of all.
There is no coercion in the GPL, IMHO, since y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
5. c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
Marxists love to coerce folks way beyond the point it's any of their business. In this example, they wa
Re: (Score:2)
Ironic, you calling others "jerkhole". Here's you. [knowyourmeme.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you read, mostly facebook and bitchute?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what exactly does the BSD license provide which GPL does not, to the one releasing the code?
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom to propagate a good idea unhindered by ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
How does that in any way affect the one releasing the code? The question was rather specific, and you are answering another question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as a major contributor, I much prefer contributing to GPL/copyleft projects.
The BSD license is seriously preferable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you also get the personal satisfaction of contributing to other people's bottom lines without even being able to get their code improvements in return to look at.
You're pretty much the communist mindset personified. Give to The Man, expect nothing in return.
And you revel in it. That's some serious double-think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, "someone else" can only use YOUR code, not the code based on yours. That's called "lack of freedom".
It's pretty darn obvious you don't care. If you did, you would make sure others could use what you create in the long term.
And yes, accomplishing that takes coercion. And that coercion is a great idea. Someone wants to use my code, they're free to do so - as long as they provide the same freedom to others. Quid pro quo. That's how societies become powerful. Selfishness is a dead end street, no matter how
Re: (Score:2)
GPLv3 is for sure Communist bullshit.
If it's accurate to describe a software license which doesn't utilize political theory in terms of political theories*, it's socialist, not communist. Communism doesn't have currency, and the GPL doesn't do anything to prevent commercial use or sale.
* Hint: It isn't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a link?
A few of the comments here [searchenginejournal.com] are representative of the confusion.