OSDev.org

In short, I'm sick of hearing people trashing GPL without stating any arguments. I'm hoping that I'll hear them here. Anyone who can only think of cuss words and such (on either side) will be considered a mere fanboy. Such a person should generally be silent about the topic and refrain from commenting.
The purpose of this for us (the people who will participate in the discussion) is to define our differences and see if our license preferences are rooted in common sense or just feelings (which then often results in the above mentioned behavior).
NOTE: I will assume that if you comment here, you are pro - free software. "Free" will be defined as those 4 freedoms listed by FSF. If you have a problem with any of them, you can also state it here.
Personal opinion about FSF, rms, Torvalds, Linux, BSD Unix, POSIX, the term Open Source, even the GNU project even though valuable are irrelevant to the current topic, which I expect you to follow. Arguments not adressing GPL (or BSD) should be left for another topic (and I will do the same). Also, this should be obvious but somehow I think I should say it before we begin "I hate [GPL/BSD]" is not an argument, I hope we can all agree on that one.
Again: We're discussing the BSD license, and the GPL license in regards to user's freedom. Pro's and con's for each one are welcome.

Now that we have set the rules, feel free to begin:

EDIT: Typo & look

Although I'm completely on the side of the free software folks, I think the core problem with the GPL is that it is almost hypocritically restrictive to the user. As is quite obvious with the Linux kernel, there are major problems with not allowing proprietary code at any cost in the kernel. Similarly, the viral nature of the GPL restricts the developer to the GPL alone as a license, restricting their freedoms.

Using a permissive license like BSD variants solves the restriction problem, but then opens the door for others to restrict your use of the software (or at least modified versions using the original as a springboard). All it really does is make sure you always get credit for your work, which I personally don't care hugely about. You have to restrict someone, which is the problem.

The "open source" idea is okay - it makes sure that you at least have basic access to the source code, so you can properly understand the inner workings and interface with the produced program. But it doesn't protect the user at all, and some of the proprietary restrictions can still be in place.

My idea of a balance is to make sure that source is available (like some open source licenses), but that linking with other code is always possible (like the LGPL), even on the source code level (like BSD) and that the user has to be able to do whatever they want with the binary, especially disassemble and at least locally modify it. That's why I wrote my own license for my OS, even if I eventually decide on a more popular license.

I also greatly dislike the wordiness and legalspeak of the GPL - legal documents are just like code: the more of it there is, the more bugs/loopholes there could be.

You should judge the content of posts rather than the expression. By saying such a thing, you've opened the door to humorous swearing. Which becomes particularly hilarious coming from someone who is instigating a pointless holy war over permissive vs. copyleft licenses.


I find that people who bash copyleft tend to make their main disagreement known... They dislike the share-the-way-we-tell-you-to-or-don't-distribute part. Meanwhile people who bash permissive licenses tend to not like having their code taken, "improved", and sold. I think the truth is that a lot of code will never be interesting enough to sell, so why not make it as available as possible (and put it under a permissive license)? This site is an example, where most of the shared code is used to teach other programmers, and would require a lot of work to turn into a sellable product. Interestingly enough, I wonder how people would react if their code was, without credit, embedded into someone's homework. I think that notion would piss (Are you going to ignore me now?) more people off than selling with credit.

Programmers are pretty much the only group that are ever going to give a rat's @$$ (I just can't stop) about the topic of software availability. Which shouldn't surprise anyone. People generally don't care about something until it negatively impacts them (DRM is a good example of this). They'll give away their freedoms for a shiny widget or two. Think about it, over the last decade we've witnessed people surrender freedoms they've been brainwashed since birth to cherish (freedom of speech, habeus corpus, etc.). What makes you think they'll care about a freedom that they can only possibly derive indirect benefits from? This paragraph is a tangent on the philosphy of Open Source vs. Free Software, and only has partial value in the discussion. Why I believe making the issue a moral crusade is a mistake, and why using terminology from the FSF is problematic.

Personally, I believe in using the right tool for the job. Which is a mixture of copyleft and permissive licenses. At the moment, most of what I'm writing should go under a permissive license.

Isn't that the point? *All* of the people on this forum are programmers, and we obviously care about ourselves at least as much as the users of the software. The (l)users aren't even part of the picture, if the software is free, except that protecting the programmer involves much of the same legal stuff.

Don't you think copyleft is a necessary "evil"? You say GPL wants us to "share-the-way-we-tell-you-to-or-don't-distribute", but I'm asking: what's the problem in that kind of sharing? What your freedoms does GPL compromise, accept your "freedom" to deprive someone else of the very same freedom you have been given? I see nothing "hypocritical" in it.

Hmm... I just had a good idea. Why not have a license that is as restrictive as the GPL, but allows absolutely any modifications (including those that violate the license, except for this provision) as long as they are not distributed? So everything would work like it were GPL'ed, but people could develop proprietary patches or objects (to be linked) to modify the main tree. If the modification is major (i.e. it involves modifying the original source), the patch would have to be textual, and you could see what is happening. If the modification is more like an extension, then it could just be linked in. Either way, the extensions could never supplant the original project, but they could still be easily marketed. You get all the benefits of open source, but also proper protection of the original project against "improvements". Most importantly, because it provides a common ground, it would destroy almost all reinvention of the wheel.

GPL states that freedoms must apply only if you (re)distribute. That means if you use the code internally (alone, or maybe even in a company), you're not obligated to share your code, because there are no users - you are your only user.
The possiblity to link is further granted by LGPL, as you have stated. However, I see no good coming of using proprietary software, even extensions. There should be a pay-per-patch commercial free software model (a service: coding, not a product: software), and we shouldn't bother with proprietary at all.
Also, it should be noted that GPL'd code is still your copyright, and you can re-license and sell it to a proprietary company (which you are not likely to do with BSD unless they want to buy copyright itself). This way (by dual licensing), you're contributing to the community and selling your code by the product-model, but you are just feeding the proprietary trolls, and giving the weak users an excuse not to use free software (as proprietary would have more features).

Idk, pay-per-patch as a model seems to be a pretty nice compromise. I think you need a little more defense on the fact that there is "no good coming of using proprietary software" - choosing to follow any argument blindly is never a good idea, regardless of how right or wrong it is. The point of the pay-per-patch model would be that even though extensions could be proprietary, there would be just as many users of the free software: probably more, because it's hard to beat free.

And it's not a very valid point to say that you can just re-license your code if it's GPL'ed. Most projects have much more than just one programmer's code, and therefore become sorts of immovable copyright blobs. If you are the sole copyright holder, of course it's logical to use the GPL, because you can't restrict yourself. But that's not too realistic.

BSD, buying a friend a beer.
GPL, buying a friend a beer.. forcefuly collecting his urine the next day.. studing all of the contributions he made.

... and giving it away to other friends ad infinitum.

Although, this just seems like too much of a randomly provocative statement, even though it's funny as a joke. The issue is that if this analogy was like the actual situation, urine would be more valuable than beer. And the collection would not be forceful.

Boy, that was one of the longest rants I've ever written.

And because it's 100% on-topic for my blog, actually burning some of the topics I had reserved for future blog entries, I decided to put it there and merely post a link here.

Things not POSIX: "The 42 Flame"

QFT!

The enemy is definitely not proprietary software, but instead those companies that destroy the ecosystem *and* the users' freedom. That's why I'm advocating the whole pay-per-patch idea, because it allows the commercialization of good extensions to existing free software, but not the takeover of the software. In the paradigmatic open source "bazaar" model, you obviously need entrepreneurs; you cannot call anything a bazaar if nothing is sold. Free software should encompass enough so that it allows anyone to participate and develop, but commercial software can be very effective in innovation, which should be rewarded. Proprietary software cannot be easily built upon, so the innovations must eventually be rewritten in a free form and become part of the software core so further independent developments may be made.

Being legally bound in the name of freedom doesn't seem even a bit odd to you?

I don't see anything wrong with copyleft. Basically it states that if there can be restrictions on software due to copyright, then let's accept them, and choose them in way that encourages availability. Meanwhile the permissive camp believes in minimizing restrictions.

Both strategies have their uses.

Meh. I think the point is that every side of this argument has enough merit that nobody is going to win. Personally, I'm morally opposed to imposing morals. In the end, the developer population is what will determine the future of software.

Solar, I applaud you. You've put into words (and to a very high quality at that) exactly how I feel in this debate.

However, I also believe that everyone has their own opinion in this matter, and this is certainly a topic where everyone feels very strongly about their own opinion. We all believe different things, and we'll all fight for our own belief to be heard (and accepted).

EDIT: NickJohnson posted a similar thought while I was writing - I'm too slow!