Comment by josephg | Hacker News Reader

Comment by josephg | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> It should be forbidden to forbid.

Well, the GPL forbids me from sharing opensource code between work and hobby projects. Especially GPL3. Thats the worst!

I think its remarkable how proponents of GPLed code insist that GPL is about freedom. The GPL is a list of quite restrictive, opinionated, and frankly ambiguous terms that together make me less free to use opensource code to build software, including other opensource code.

The fantasy of the GPL hopes that all opensource code was GPLed. And then we would collectively create such a large moat that companies have no choice but to GPL their software too. And it essentially requires every single scrap of opensource software out there uses the GPL, so we can make a monopolistic straight jacket for software.

This is a suffocating, and impossible dream because (spoilers): Not all programmers want that! Companies hate it. And opensource programmers like me hate it. I want to work on software that I can use both at work and for fun.

So (of course), we make other implementations which aren't GPLed. And now companies can choose if they want the GPL version or the MIT version and - gosh - they choose and invest in the MIT version. MacOS gets built on top of FreeBSD. LLVM gets massive financial support from companies and it becomes excellent. Microsoft has a competing software stack for just about everything and increasingly thats all opensource too. And React. And Chromium. And so on.

The moat is broken. GPL has failed in what it was trying to do. The GPL probably needs 90%+ of opensource code out there to be GPL licensed to achieve its mission, and yet according to a random google search[1], its actually used in about 5% of actual projects. Nobody is forced to GPL anything these days. The GPL hasn't put effective pressure on companies to opensource their code for decades.

Yet another MIT licensed coreutils implementation changes nothing.

[1] https://gustavopinto.medium.com/why-the-mit-license-is-much-...

The point of GPL is that it preserves the freedoms of users, not developers. You are a developer. The GPL in no uncertain terms takes freedom away from developers so users can have freedom. The only freedom taken is the "freedom" to build closed source software--and presumably support closed and locked down hardware, given the context of this discussion--and then profit off of restricting the freedom of your users. That is the only cost.

FWIW, I do appreciate the part of your argument whereby copyleft lost; I just don't agree about why: my best guess is that the lack of GPL3 back when copyleft has power was the critical lack of foresight that has led to companies like Apple and Google to have the 15-20 years required to build empires on top of the work of open source developers and then use the resources they accumulated to rebuild--part by part--the entire stack until they simply didn't need to rely on the open source community anymore.

> The GPL in no uncertain terms takes freedom away from developers so users can have freedom.

And therein lies the problem. Open source developers are already doing a bunch of work for free to benefit others, and this license asks them to voluntarily make that work more onerous. Other than an appeal to their sense of morality (which only works if they happen to be a Stallman disciple), what's their incentive to use it? It's simply demanding more from those who are already giving.

>> It's simply demanding more from those who are already giving.

If you are giving away source code, the GPL doesn't ask you to give more. It does require your downstream to continue giving should they take and extend or modify.

Perhaps I could have phrased things better--it doesn't directly ask for more but it does create additional burdens. It makes my downstream much smaller, which results in fewer contributions back to my project.

It also just isn't something I want to impose on downstream developers--I want people to use my code, and if they make some money, good for them. It's not like they took anything out of my pocket by doing so. Unfortunately there's a class of entitled moralists who think this is the wrong attitude for me to have, and that I should only distribute code if I pledge to enforce their idea of "freedom" regarding its use.

>> Unfortunately there's a class of entitled moralists who think this is the wrong attitude for me to have, and that I should only distribute code if I pledge to enforce their idea of "freedom" regarding its use.

I think that's a bit harsh. If you think the opposite - that MIT/BSD licenses should be preferred over Copyleft - then you should look in a mirror when saying that. Fortunately I suspect it's just your own preference and that's great. My opinion is that MIT licensed code is appropriate for some cases but I prefer GPLv3 as a default.

I'm rather angry at other licenses (MPL and Apache in particular) for existing. Maybe they bring some nuance that I don't understand yet, but their existence creates more options and concern over license compatibility. I think BSD/MIT or GPL/LGPL should be it, the rest IMHO are just fragmentation.

It is my personal preference. I couldn't care less how others license their own code. My issue is with people like those who came into this thread to complain about the license of a project they've contributed nothing to, and paint anyone who disagrees as a paid shill. If they want a rust-based copyleft coreutils, nobody is stopping them from building it.

> the GPL doesn't ask you to give more

Sure it does. It essentially asks me to give away the ability to profit from my work later or get hired by companies making use of my projects. (Because companies generally refuse to use GPL code at all).

It’s hard enough keeping up the motivation to write and maintain an opensource project. If no one uses it and I can’t find a way to make it financially self sustaining on top of that? Bleh no thanks!

> Because companies generally refuse to use GPL code at all

You mean, they refuse to use Linux?

Most companies refuse to incorporate GPL code / libraries into their projects. The question is what counts as a "derivative work". Using linux as an OS target is fine, but statically linking GPLed libraries is generally not ok.

Companies seem happy using GPL software (like linux) only so far as they're allowed to ignore all the share-alike clauses of the GPL.

> what's their incentive to use it? It's simply demanding more from those who are already giving.

apparently the notion of Tivoization was lost in a very short period of time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

When I license something under GPL I'm not asking people to give more, I'm forcing them to not take without giving back.

They are free to use my software however they want and to modify it however they want, unless they want to redistribute it.

Plain and simple.

What's so hard about it?

> Other than an appeal to their sense of morality (which only works if they happen to be a Stallman disciple)

it's the exact opposite.

Apart from the wording, which sounds dismissing for no reason, Stallman has no disciples, people who describe them like that usually have some agenda that does not respect other people's freedoms, since we know discipline is hard, GPL forces people (corporations mostly) to stay away if the just want to free-ride on voluntary work.

Want to use GPL code? No problem! it's yours, no strings attached, there are only 2 things you can't do: put it under a different license, redistribute it without incorporating your changes as GPL.

Which is completely fine morally and ethically, if you come to my house and are my guest for free and I only ask you to not rent the property for money and if you do to share the money with me, would you think I'm appealing to your sense of morality or that I am being fair?

Compare it to, let's say, any other proprietary license where, for example, Oracle doesn't allow you to run the software you have bough on different hardware configurations than the one you bought the license for and try to establish which one gives you more freedom.

There's also, OTOH, a popular trope that says "I license it <whatever free license not GPL> because I have no problem with corporations using it and I can brag about being the author"

Well, that's a pipe dream, the most delusional there is.

Take this as an example among so many that it's really heart shattering: https://twitter.com/FiloSottile/status/1469441487175880711

An hypothetical discussion would go like this

- coder: I wrote this code, hope you like it, it's free to use

- megacorp: you mean I have to pay zero $?

- coder: I mean it's free as in freedom!

- megacorp: can you speak $ please? is it zero or not?

- coder: well, yes, but that's not the p...

- megacorp: then ZERO it is and I will also blame you for any bug or if you do not add the features I need

- coder: but that's not fair...

- megacorp: does the license prohibit it?

- coder: well... no

- megacorp: then unfair it is!

how THIS (which is far from rare or no heard of outcome) incentivize people to keep on coding for free is the real mystery to me! not that the GPL asks people to follow standard human decency and respect for other people hard work. That's completely understandable to me!

You're confused. I'm not talking about using your GPL code in my project. I'm talking about why I choose not to license my own project as GPL.

Edit: Nice ninja edit. No, I don't use non-copyleft licenses for bragging rights. What is it with GPL ideologues in this thread and ascribing ulterior motives to anyone who disagrees with them? Here's why I don't use copyleft: because I don't give a shit who uses my code or for what. It's really that simple. I guess I don't have enough petty envy in me to care if, god forbid, somebody else makes a buck off my code.

And so what if some corporation blames me for bugs? I can tell them to fix it themselves or pound sand. That's the beauty of requiring nothing from them in return. They have no leg to stand on when making demands of me.

did you or did you not write these sentences?

> Other than an appeal to their sense of morality (which only works if they happen to be a Stallman disciple)

> what's their incentive to use it? It's simply demanding more from those who are already giving.

I think you meant more than simply "why I choose not to license my own project as GPL"

you're actually bashing on GPL because you either

- are ignorant of what GPL license says

- have an agenda and/or are paid to spread FUD

- all of the above

If I want to be charitable I would say that the last hypothesis is that you are not aware of what you write.

EDIT:

you also rote

> Nobody is "afraid" of copyleft, that's a rhetorical device you're using to discredit those who disagree with you

Which is not true, a lot of businesses are afraid of copyleft, in fact at work not many people can publish their code under a copyleft license, because the mainstream mindset is that code is an asset and keeping it secret gives companies an advantage. Which clearly is not the case, because most of the code is simply a rewrite - usually bad - of something that already exists in the copyleft World. Everyone working in the field knows that. So it's a decision based on fear not on risk assessment. The company I work for is specialized in risk assessment and even they cannot escape the myth that code must be kept secret or the competition would steal it. I wonder what competitor would steal that pile of garbage that only works under very specific requirements, which are mostly there because 40 years of legacy and incompetence.

You seem to have an idea of copyleft (GPL in particular) that is far from what it is and it only exists in your mind.

> I think you meant more than simply "why I choose not to license my own project as GPL"

Think what you want. Nobody else was confused by my meaning.

> have and agenda and are paid to spread FUD

LMAO you guys are fucking lunatics. Have a nice night.

> Think what you want. Nobody else was confused by my meaning.

you are very confused and don't even understand what you wrote my dear friend.

GPL is not based on "asking those who are already giving to give more" but on collaboration. Which I understand is not a thing for you, so you better stay away from it, but that's not a GPL's fault, that's exactly the purpose: keeping away the free riders like you!

besides "nobody else" is a very poor defense, only kids use that. It doesn't make your statements less false.

> LMAO you guys are fucking lunatics. Have a nice night.

Who are you talking to now?

I am one.

Reminder: the World is vast, USA is just a small percentage of it, not even one of the most interesting by any metric, it's lunch time here.

Sleep on it, if tomorrow you still see the invisible "guys" you mentioned, call a doctor. You sure you're ok?

To me the only open source license that seems to make sense without imposing on other developers, is the MPL without copyleft exception:

"Do what the fsck you want with your code; as long as my code and any modifications to it are available under the MPL, I don't give a sheet what you do with the rest of your code."

Also, when another license is incompatible with the GPL, I see it more as the GPL being at fault, because it's literally only compatible with itself unless you explicitly add exceptions. It doesn't matter if another license grants the exact same freedoms as the GPL, it will be incompatible with the GPL because it has a different name.

> What is it with GPL ideologues in this thread

so if you chose BSD you are exercising your freedom, if people use the GPL the way it was intended, they are lunatics or ideologues.

Nice try, little "Nazi schatze" who "fight for fatherland" (cit).

> what. It's really that simple. I guess I don't have enough petty envy in me to care if, god forbid, somebody else makes a buck off my code.

except that there are INNUMERABLE cases of people having created very successful projects (please provide proof that your code served more than yourself) that are lamenting the fatigue of maintaining it while commercial entities make a lot of money out of it, without giving back, not even pennnies, let alone workers or code.

That's why GPL has its merits, it prevents this kind of behaviour which is to be expected from corporations and other private for profit entities.

If you think that's ideology and your case will be different, you're simply delusional.

As soon as 20 people will start using your code and file bugs, ask for features, open issues on something that is not related in any way to what you wrote, because they did not understand it or were told to nag you, you'll lose your shit. 100% guaranteed.

For what?

> there are INNUMERABLE cases of people having created very successful projects that are lamenting the fatigue of maintaining it while commercial entities make a lot of money out of it, without giving back, not even pennnies, let alone workers or code.

Hi, people have made money using my code and I also don’t care. I’m happy more people are using my software. I like the bragging rights and I’ve gotten plenty of work off the back of my opensource work. I understand this is upsetting to you. If you don’t want people using the software you write for free, maybe don’t write free software? That’s sort of the point.

There is a problem of freeloading in the opensource world - we need better ways to fund opensource code. But I don’t see how the GPL is a viable solution to that problem. Not at all. More likely, if I release my code under the GPL not only won’t I get paid, but also nobody will use my software. That sounds like a strategy which just makes everyone lose.

> Hi, people have made money using my code and I also don’t care

looks like everyone's missing the point.

> I understand this is upsetting to you

Again, maybe I am on another level of comprehension, so I don't understanda why it is so hard for someone to get it, but I am not upset by that, at all.

I simply know that those who think "it will be fine" are delusional and don't know what they are talking about!

So I just will paste some link to relevant news here, maybe it will make things clearer.

It includes the opinion of Antirez, father of one of the most successful OSS ever: Redis. Maybe his words will open your eyes and tear the veil of Maya.

(spoiler ahead alert!)

Basically you work for free and people don't even thank you and the maintainer ends up being doxed or blamed or pushed aside and in the long term the only solution to keep sanity is to resign

https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2022/burden-open-source-ma...

https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/13/opensource_apacheplc4...

https://nolanlawson.com/2017/03/05/what-it-feels-like-to-be-...

https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/z14tt2/reason_why_op...

https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/167

http://web.archive.org/web/20221217180915/http://antirez.com...

> But I don’t see how the GPL is a viable solution to that problem. Not at all

GPL doesn't permit freeloading, that's how

Do you wanna know who the freeloaders are?

Just make a list of companies that do not accept GPL code.

Those are the free loaders.

For people it's even simpler: you don't want to contribute to the project because it's GPL? then you are a freeloader.

Which is not the same of saying that if someone creates a project under Apache license he's a freeloader. There are many reasons to start a project under more permissive licenses, but if you plan to write something that has chances of being successful, think about what you're doing and who got your back.

It's one thing to create Go and make it opensource with Google backing you, another entirely to maintain log4j or GPG or OpenSSH on your free time for years or decades, without even a thank you and people constantly opening issue like "this thing is shit it should be rewritten in Rust" or "this project doesn't have a COC/ the COC is not inclusive enough I will blame you all over the internet" etc. etc.

My Apache/BSD projects are under that license because I know it's code that will be used in a context where GPL would not be accepted, but I also refuse to offer any kind of support whatsoever, basically once you get it, it's yours, I won't even close your issues, I will simply ignore them, that's how much I care about it.

Because I don't care to work on stuff that people are not forced to contribute back to, unless it's for myself.

Need a feature? Show me the money and I will think about implementing it.

> . Not at all. More likely, if I release my code under the GPL not only won’t I get paid, but also nobody will use my software

textbook straw man

you will get paid in code.

Linux is GPL, Vim is GPL, Emacs is GPL, GCC is GPL, Gnome is GPL, KDE is GPL, OpenJDK is GPL, Telegram is GPL, VLC is GPL, Blender is GPL, uBlock Origin is GPL, etc. etc. it's notorious that nobody uses them...

> The point of GPL is that it preserves the freedoms of users, not developers. You are a developer. The GPL in no uncertain terms takes freedom away from developers so users can have freedom.

If users want to have freedom, they're free to develop software on their own time or their own dime.

Some of us fight for the user.

> companies like Apple and Google to have the 15-20 years required to build empires on top of the work of open source developers

Well, apple built on top of FreeBSD instead - which already existed and worked great. And Microsoft - the most important competitor 20 years ago - just happily built their own competing implementation of … well, everything.

The moat wasn’t effective long before Google and cloud services took over. The lack of forsight around needing gpl3 was just a nail in the coffin.

That's just the kernel: Apple has been shipping tons of other GPL software and components in their operating system distributions that they've slowly been going through every year to rip more and more out. I mean, hell: they even relied on Samba for a long time before they got around to building a replacement!

> The GPL in no uncertain terms takes freedom away from developers so users can have freedom.

BALONEY

it's hard to even claim that copyright law itself takes freedom away from you. But in the context of copyright law, every license including BSD/MIT and GPL grants you freedoms; none of them takes freedoms

>GPL forbids me from sharing opensource code between work and hobby projects

You still retain copyright unless signed to transfer it. So if it's your own code you can share. Many projects are even dual-licensed so they can develop in open source manner but also be possible to be sold for commercial use. Now if you just want to take code from someone's else GPL-licensed project without sharing your own, well, unfortunately not possible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com