GPL FUD round N+1 | Hacker News Reader

GPL FUD round N+1

ahren.org

20 pointschanux14 comments

I think the reason I don't like the GPL is that it is aggressively pessimistic. If you release your code under MIT or BSD and _ask_ people to contribute back if they improve it, most people actually will - I don't think I've ever used GPL and I've gotten hundreds of patches for projects of mine. People don't contribute to open source because they're forced, they do it because they want the network effect of everyone else contributing and they want the software to be better.

However, GPL says "I don't trust you, and I don't trust you so much that I'm going to legally severely limit what you can do with my code unless you promise legally to share my philosophy". It's not only frustrating when you're trying to figure out what you can and can't do with it, but it just seems kind of mean-spirited. It implies that they feel that if they don't legally force you to, you'll try to take advantage of everyone, which is sad.

Maybe I want to use a library for a commercial application and would then be able to spend part of my work day improving it - if it's GPL, it's use is not even an option assuming that the company will not open source the main product, if it's not GPL than both the library and the company benefits.

I guess at the end of the day, I just don't care if someone takes advantage of some of my code - several of our GitHub competitors use our MIT'd Grit library we use to run their own sites, but honestly we don't really care - we'd rather have a larger user base and volunteer pool and let even our competitors be able to contribute back than shut everyone out because we are so distrustful and protective of our code and time.

I just think that asking is more effective than threatening, and to me the GPL is threatening.

I think I get why people don't like the GPL -- it forces them to do something, whereas other licenses don't. If you use GPL'd code, your code has to be GPL, there is no option. If you use BSD code, you have the option of making your code free, or you have the option of not doing that.

I read a book called "Predictably Irrational" that documents this effect. The author set people up with a computer game where the goal was to run around and collect as many points as possible. Bags would randomly appear, you would collect them, and that would get you the points. Different rooms had different rates of points appearing, and some rooms would produce higher value objects, etc. He tried a variety of scenarios to see how people would behave; one involved a door to another room (which might have more earning potential than the current room) that you could travel through at the cost of a certain number of points. If you didn't go through the door, it would eventually disappear. He found that people, even after finding that the room that the door led to was worthless, would still waste time and points to keep the door open. Nobody wanted to let an opportunity, even a poor one, pass.

I think this explains the (predictably) irrational hatred for the GPL; it makes doors close, and that is something we are apparently hard-wired to hate. Even though we know we are never going to make our free app proprietary, we want that option.

You're kind of stacking the deck here. It's true that a programmer who knows for certain that she's never going to make her code proprietary would be behaving irrationally to insist on keeping an option she'll never use.

But that's a rare case. What about the more numerous programmers who don't know for certain? If they choose to keep the proprietary option open by eschewing GPL-licensed code, that could be perfectly rational, depending on the value to them of the GPL-licensed code they're declining to use.

And what about the programmers, like Daniel Jalkut, who work on proprietary commercial projects? Of course he'd prefer for other projects to use liberal licenses that would allow him to make use of them. That's the opposite of irrational; it's just straightforward incentives.

"I think I get why people don't like the GPL -- it forces them to do something, whereas other licenses don't. If you use GPL'd code, your code has to be GPL, there is no option."

Unfortunately, that's not true.

From http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851

"When you hear that the GPL is viral and can force proprietary code to become GPL... you'll know that isn't true.

If you steal GPL code... a forced release under the GPL can't be imposed on you.

You do have a choice under the GPL license: you can stop using the stolen code and write your own, or you can decide you'd rather release under the GPL. But the choice is yours. If you say, I choose neither, then the court can impose an injunction to stop you from further distribution, but it won't order your code released under the GPL."

I write libraries as well as applications, and I know that I'll use those libraries for both free and non-free applications, as the occasion requires. Accordingly, I do not want to pollute the libraries with GPL restrictions, and thus avoid all GPL and LGPL code (even the LGPL restricts how I can link against the code, requiring dynamic libraries, and how I distribute the code).

I don't consider this irrational; the paycheck that allows me to devote many many hours of my life to open source software comes entirely from software sales.

Consumers don't purchase "services" for desktop software, and the enterprise services I do provide are purchased by companies who ... sell software.

FTA: Each commercial application is the dead end of the tree of evolution of that code, for nobody else can take it further.

Stated simply and elegantly.

Bah. I come to Hacker News to get away from the freetards on Slashdot. You're making this difficult for me :-)

I come to Hacker News to avoid having to read words ending in "tards".

DIE IN A FIRE RTARD

But I thought the GPL is less free?

I see what the GPL wants to do as quite noble. It's a share-and-share-alike system.

I've run into many people who are very opposed to the GPL, generally because they can't build upon GPL code without being required to release their code under a GPL license. In general, I see these people as wanting a license to protect their ideas, but a license isn't designed for that. A license protects work (by preventing what you can do with it, while the idea is often evident, documented, or easily derivable). A patent protects ideas. If your idea is so good it can stand on its own then you can patent it and release the code in whatever way you want because you can still prevent people from using your idea even if they can see your code.

Heck, if your code is so great that you should get all the royalties, then wouldn't you want everyone else to be able to see how awesome it is?

Let's not advocate software patents.

I would like to, say, write a windowing system from scratch without having to worry that my use of xor-ing a cursor onto the screen is patented. (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/int-p...)

Sure, that's a good idea, but the value is in the windowing system, not a tiny implementation detail. That is why copyright is the right tool for protecting computer programs; patents just stall progress.

Why is the GPL the only option for people who would like to see how awesome their code is? Why is getting royalties incompatible with letting people see the source?

The answer, of course, is that both questions are nonsense.

As inept as the criticisms he's responding to are, Wordpress themes needing to be GPL is totally ridiculous -- they're input to the program!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com