Hacker News Reader

Comment by mattbriggs | Hacker News Reader

I know the ruby and python worlds are almost universally BSD-ish licenses, and you will get a lot of flack for releasing something GPL. The reason is that most companies that use ruby or python libraries are totally happy to contribute back patches and be part of the open source ecosystem, but releasing something as GPL makes that impossible. And since there are a lot of companies doing ruby and python, there is a great deal of frustration when someone puts that block up.

Another interesting thing about that world is the level of quality and participation in an open source ecosystem that doesn't legally mandate participation. It leads me to think of the GPL as an exclusionary license.

View on HN

I've taken to using LGPL for libraries, and GPL for applications. LGPL takes the stuff I like about BSD (everyone can use, including non GPL compatible stuff), and adds some more stuff I want (viral nature). For instance, I've been working on a platform for "competitive programming", where people write AIs to play games against each other. The game engines (programs that coordinate the game between players) are licensed under GPL, for they are my work, and I want people to contribute back if they use something out of them. The game libraries are LGPL however, as I don't want to dissuade people from using the libraries, but would like them to publish improvements they make.

Call me an idiot for saying it, but I would rather believe that people fundamentally aren't jerks and rely on community spirit rather then legally enforcing cooperation :)

I think the reason that happens for ruby and python is so many of the people using those platforms are startups where the technologists are the guys calling the shots, and it probably doesn't work universally, but I am glad I work in a part of the industry where we let people participate on their own terms, it just seems more meaningful.

I totally get that it isn't like that everywhere though, and the only way to get good cooperation is to hold a gun to the head of large corporations.

The reason is that most companies that use ruby or python libraries are totally happy to contribute back patches and be part of the open source ecosystem,

Then they should have absolutely no problem with the GPL.

but releasing something as GPL makes that impossible

Please explain how requiring distributors to include access to source code makes it impossible to contribute source code.

They are happy to contribute back the patches of a GPL library, but they don't want to open source their entire product just because it links a GPL library.

Because unless a software company is specifically structured to not make money off its source code, giving that away is pretty much the dumbest thing they can do. So when they want to build something and are evaluating options, if there is an MIT library that will get them most of the way, they will use it. If there is a commercial library that will get them most of the way, they will use it. If there is a GPL library, it doesn't matter how good it is, they will not use it and instead build their own thing from scratch.

I realize this website penalizes people for pointing out the obvious but I have to ask you, did you even read what you responded to because what you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with the question the GP asked. Getting your talking points in is one thing but at least try to put it in context.

>>>but releasing something as GPL makes that impossible >>Please explain how requiring distributors to include access to source code makes it impossible to contribute source code. > (me talking about how the requirement to distribute their source code will make companies not contribute to opensource)

how is that out of context?

Easy, especially with GPLv3 you now have patents issues to contend with. That makes the entire process burdensome and expensive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com