Posted: 5/20/2010 7:47:59 PM EDT
|
I've thought about this several times before and have never completely decided where I fall on this question. As a developer, I make my living writing proprietary code for a company which sells business software.
I've thought about the philosophical aspects of the open source software "movement" and feel there are some disturbing ideas pushed by some of its supporters. There are alot of outright Communists/Socialists in the movement (self-avowed)... but lets put that element aside. Is open source software necessarily anti-capitalist or anti-business? The best I have been able to solidify my feelings is to say that I think when it comes to things like protocols and formats, I like those being open source. Open source software is inherently more secure for the paranoid among us, as anybody can examine it to ensure there are no backdoors or obvious security holes (intentional or not). I think the biggest problem lies with some of the licenses. I hate the GPL because it is obviously anti-business and reads like a radical leftist wrote it. BSD and Apache licenses aren't as bad. What does Arfcom think? |
|
Quoted:
How about the concept of running the software that provides the best solution to a computing need at the lowest cost. I guess I should clarify that I am thinking from a software development or business point of view. For the end user, there is no real philosophical question or responsibility... it's as simple as you suggest. No real discussion there. |
|
If you want to charge for your work... charge for it.
If you want to not charge for it... don't. There are benefits both ways in the computing world. The question is... which one benefits YOU the most. Do what is in your best interest (think really hard about what that phrase really means). |
|
Quoted:
How about the concept of running the software that provides the best solution to a computing need at the lowest cost. This And what ever is easiest to use for those of us who are not computer nerds and only know how to use them for work and wasting time on the internet. 
|
|
Most open-source code is only free for private use. Now the open-source operating systems may be free but this is a design feature. It means the operating system can be modified for each use. In every case, it frees money for system administration. It isn't a communist plot by any measure. |
|
Quoted:
Most open-source code is only free for private use. Now the open-source operating systems may be free but this is a design feature. It means the operating system can be modified for each use. In every case, it frees money for system administration. It isn't a communist plot by any measure. I'm certainly not worried about a "communist plot", and again, I'm not talking about consumers. Also, there is a big difference between "free" software and open source software. The software that runs Facebook is free for us all to use (and they can still turn a handsome profit from ads), but they obviously aren't going to open their source up. However, if I am developing a large piece of software (hopefully for profit) and I need to utilize an GPL'd open source library in order to make my application integrate with a popular service, I am forced to open the source to my entire application. The idea that applying a license like the GPL to a library will prevent any future closed source software from using it is ridiculous IMO. |
|
Quoted:
Most open-source code is only free for private use. Now the open-source operating systems may be free but this is a design feature. It means the operating system can be modified for each use. In every case, it frees money for system administration. It isn't a communist plot by any measure. That's not accurate in any way, Keith. Most open source code is licensed under the GPL or a variant of the BSD licenses. None of those prohibit commercial use, they only disclaim liability for it. In fact, Stallman would not call any software that disallowed commercial use by the moniker "open source", or "Free / Open Source". It goes against the principles he created the GPL to protect. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most open-source code is only free for private use. Now the open-source operating systems may be free but this is a design feature. It means the operating system can be modified for each use. In every case, it frees money for system administration. It isn't a communist plot by any measure. I'm certainly not worried about a "communist plot", and again, I'm not talking about consumers. Also, there is a big difference between "free" software and open source software. The software that runs Facebook is free for us all to use (and they can still turn a handsome profit from ads), but they obviously aren't going to open their source up. However, if I am developing a large piece of software (hopefully for profit) and I need to utilize an GPL'd open source library in order to make my application integrate with a popular service, I am forced to open the source to my entire application. The idea that applying a license like the GPL to a library will prevent any future closed source software from using it is ridiculous IMO. Why is that ridiculous? If I create a library, and make the source code freely available under the GPL, why is it ridiculous that you would have to abide by it? If you don't want to abide by the GPL, you are free to negotiate a different license with the person who holds the copyright on the code, or simply don't use the library that somebody provided to the open source community for free, and write your own code. You say that it's obvious that Facebook won't open up their source, why is that obvious? Slashdot did. Kuro5hin did. Neither of them is facebook, but there are plenty of people out there who have no problem open sourcing their code. If you need to keep your code closed-source to make a profit, more power to you –– nobody's telling you that you can't. But if you decide to use software that has been released for free, under the GPL, you have to release your code as well. It's just a term of the license –– abide by it or write your own code. To clarify a bit –– why do you think you should have a right to integrate with whatever web service you're talking about, without following the license agreement to which you must agree in order to use the code someone else wrote for you? That's a more appropriate way to frame the question than the way you did, IMHO. If you want to integrate with it w/o using a GPL library, more than likely it's entirely possible for you to implement your own library to interface with it. Most open source software uses open specifications and interfaces, and their developers publish them or make them available. |
|
Its your decision to make software open source or closed source.
If you want to distribute software open source you can do what a few companies do, and make a "basic" model with most aspects, and then a "deluxe" version with extra features (think of Malwarebytes, with the retail version having the real-time scanner and some other options). Open source software (like Blender 3D, a program I use a lot) takes a HUGE amount of support, and depends on volunteer work, and donations (some of the basic principals of Capitalism)... I dont think the IDEA of open source software is anti-capitalist, its just people developing software in their own time, and deciding to release it for free, or have 2 different "tiers" of usability. One basic for free, and one deluxe for a price... Now how some people (or groups) execute it (as in, the End User License Agreement) can be, however keep in mind, you ARE using their ideas and work for free, the price you pay for it, is to abide by the EULA. |
|
Quoted:
I thought open source software is mostly developed as a hobby for fun. Hardly communism. Oh, some of the people who started the open source movement are definitely communists. That doesn't mean most of the people in it today are communists. Necessarily. Open Source software can be developed as a hobby, but there are plenty of people making plenty of money off of it, either by providing support for it (Redhat), or by simply using their open source software in creative ways to produce an income stream. Android is open source –– Google's using it in a bid to completely dominate the mobile phone market, by publishing a completely free mobile phone OS that's better than anything else out there. Google's hardly a hobby developer. Darwin is open source as well. Apple has successfully used it as the core to OSX for nearly ten years –– and that's making them a ton of money, both on the desktop and as the operating system on the iphone, ipod touch, and ipad. |
|
Quoted:
I thought open source software is mostly developed as a hobby for fun. Hardly communism. Not true. Open source is behind many commercial for-profit, closed-source systems. Mostly Apache licenses, of course. Mission critical shit, not just toy software. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought open source software is mostly developed as a hobby for fun. Hardly communism. Not true. Open source is behind many commercial for-profit, closed-source systems. Mostly Apache licenses, of course. Mission critical shit, not just toy software. GCCS-M uses a TON of open source software. Just one example, and that's about as mission critical as you can get. |
|
Redhat makes a hell of a profit off of open-source software. It's just a different business model. A giant loss leader, basically. ETA: I work for a giant IT company that runs mission-critical apps on Linux, among other things. A lot of you probably hit our servers every day. We use a mix of different technologies, some open, some not. |
|
Ask yourself this… What are the most successful firearm designs on the commercial market? The two that immediately come to mind are the AR-15 and the 1911. A big part of the reason for their success is that they are open source designs in a sense. Not counting the difficulty in obtaining an ATF license, if I want to make AR-15 rifles I can make AR-15 rifles. The plans are available and if I stick to them then everything will be compatible with every other AR-15 rifle.
Contrary to popular opinion, Capitalism is not about making money and getting rich. Capitalism is a moral economic system where the individual can own property (including intellectual property.) A Capitalist system uses the invisible hand and market forces to organize production. Free men to choose how they will labor in a way that they find satisfying and in a way which produces goods and services that society needs. Since society is generally willing to pay for things it needs, people who are productive in Capitalist systems often become wealthy. If a programmer writes open source code then he’s valuing other intangible rewards over financial rewards. He is perfectly free to do that. In fact, most of us do that in that we choose jobs that offer some balance of good pay and a satisfying work environment. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most open-source code is only free for private use. Now the open-source operating systems may be free but this is a design feature. It means the operating system can be modified for each use. In every case, it frees money for system administration. It isn't a communist plot by any measure. That's not accurate in any way, Keith. Most open source code is licensed under the GPL or a variant of the BSD licenses. None of those prohibit commercial use, they only disclaim liability for it. In fact, Stallman would not call any software that disallowed commercial use by the moniker "open source", or "Free / Open Source". It goes against the principles he created the GPL to protect. You're essentially wrong here. The GPL does prohibit commercial use, because the GPL is a copyleft license... if I use a GPL'd library in my software, or even make a function call to a GPL'd piece of code, I am forced to open the source to my entire application. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most open-source code is only free for private use. Now the open-source operating systems may be free but this is a design feature. It means the operating system can be modified for each use. In every case, it frees money for system administration. It isn't a communist plot by any measure. That's not accurate in any way, Keith. Most open source code is licensed under the GPL or a variant of the BSD licenses. None of those prohibit commercial use, they only disclaim liability for it. In fact, Stallman would not call any software that disallowed commercial use by the moniker "open source", or "Free / Open Source". It goes against the principles he created the GPL to protect. You're essentially wrong here. The GPL does prohibit commercial use, because the GPL is a copyleft license... if I use a GPL'd library in my software, or even make a function call to a GPL'd piece of code, I am forced to open the source to my entire application. No, I'm not "essentially" or any other way wrong here. The GPL does not, in any way, prohibit commercial use. From gnu.org: Originally Posted at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially? You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL. These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own. Originally Posted at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or commercial uses. Can I do this? No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions. GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction can be removed by the user. IF you do not wish to open source your application, then don't use GPL licensed code –– but there's no prohibition at ALL against using open source code in commercial software. Bottom line, that's how the license works. Abide by it, or don't use free code –– your call. If you want to educate yourself about the GPL, you should read the faq at gnu.org. The issue of linking to GPL libraries is far more complicated than you make it out to be. |
|
Quoted:
If you want to charge for your work... charge for it. If you want to not charge for it... don't. There are benefits both ways in the computing world. The question is... which one benefits YOU the most. Do what is in your best interest (think really hard about what that phrase really means). Exactly! I don't think the issue needs to be political at all, you should be able to do whatever you want with your time and talents as long as you aren't depriving another person of their life, liberty, or property. You'd think that would be a simple concept, but neither party cares at all for that notion. I see no issue with open source software at all as long as the people developing it know it will be open and free. |
|
From a consumer standpoint, I love it. I haven't got a full time Linux box yet, but that day is coming. I do use Firefox and recommend Thunderbird to folks that prefer an e-mail client to webmail. I love Open Office - you can easily set it up so that it uses MS Office file formats for word processing, spreadsheets and presentations. From a developer standpoint, I can see how it might cause one to do some serious thinking. |
|
GPL software provides that you do not have to share code provided that you are not distributing it. Example: Google has custom builds of MySQL. Since they don't distribute their custom build of MySQL outside their company they do not have to release the source. Many GPL libraries provide exceptions for linking. So just because you use a library doesn't automatically mean your app becomes open source. Seems dumb for that to happen anyway. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception The gov should use open source software where it makes sense. But I wouldn't want to force it on them. However, open data formats would be preferable. -Foxxz |
| Get Both! I am project managing the development of a web-based system that is running as custom modules on an open source content management system. In the last 2 years we have put about $200k in the pockets of local developers. The custom modules belong to us and the CMS belongs to the community. |
|
Quoted:
GPL software provides that you do not have to share code provided that you are not distributing it. Example: Google has custom builds of MySQL. Since they don't distribute their custom build of MySQL outside their company they do not have to release the source. Many GPL libraries provide exceptions for linking. So just because you use a library doesn't automatically mean your app becomes open source. Seems dumb for that to happen anyway. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception The gov should use open source software where it makes sense. But I wouldn't want to force it on them. However, open data formats would be preferable. -Foxxz That's a good point –– I didn't catch that he seems to have missed that distinction. The GPL only kicks in when you distribute, and you only have an obligation to provide your source to those to whom you distribute your application. |
| I'd venture to say that most people would have a hard time going any extended period of time without using something that has open-source, GPL, code under it. That doesn't stop any of the companies providing those services and products from making a buck. As mentioned before, its just a different business model. |
|
Quoted:
I'd venture to say that most people would have a hard time going any extended period of time without using something that has open-source, GPL, code under it. That doesn't stop any of the companies providing those services and products from making a buck. As mentioned before, its just a different business model. There's open source software in Windows, so, yes, you'd be correct. I think most of it is BSD license, though. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I'd venture to say that most people would have a hard time going any extended period of time without using something that has open-source, GPL, code under it. That doesn't stop any of the companies providing those services and products from making a buck. As mentioned before, its just a different business model. There's open source software in Windows, so, yes, you'd be correct. I think most of it is BSD license, though. Not even just Windows. How many home electronics, from phones to media centers, use open source code in it? I read an article not too long ago about it. Lots of embedded stuff is switching to open-source to save dev time, and keep costs down. ETA: Not too mention have common Apache/lighttpd/etc are. You can't hit more than a couple sites without connecting to a open-source daemon.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd venture to say that most people would have a hard time going any extended period of time without using something that has open-source, GPL, code under it. That doesn't stop any of the companies providing those services and products from making a buck. As mentioned before, its just a different business model. There's open source software in Windows, so, yes, you'd be correct. I think most of it is BSD license, though. Not even just Windows. How many home electronics, from phones to media centers, use open source code in it? I read an article not too long ago about it. Lots of embedded stuff is switching to open-source to save dev time, and keep costs down. ETA: Not too mention have common Apache/lighttpd/etc are. You can't hit more than a couple sites without connecting to a open-source daemon. Even toasters. 
Seriously, Open Source software is EVERYWHERE. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most open-source code is only free for private use. Now the open-source operating systems may be free but this is a design feature. It means the operating system can be modified for each use. In every case, it frees money for system administration. It isn't a communist plot by any measure. I'm certainly not worried about a "communist plot", and again, I'm not talking about consumers. Also, there is a big difference between "free" software and open source software. The software that runs Facebook is free for us all to use (and they can still turn a handsome profit from ads), but they obviously aren't going to open their source up. However, if I am developing a large piece of software (hopefully for profit) and I need to utilize an GPL'd open source library in order to make my application integrate with a popular service, I am forced to open the source to my entire application. The idea that applying a license like the GPL to a library will prevent any future closed source software from using it is ridiculous IMO. Why is that ridiculous? If I create a library, and make the source code freely available under the GPL, why is it ridiculous that you would have to abide by it? If you don't want to abide by the GPL, you are free to negotiate a different license with the person who holds the copyright on the code, or simply don't use the library that somebody provided to the open source community for free, and write your own code. I think the GNU license is ridiculous, in contrast to more reasonable licenses like the LGPL, BSD or Apache licenses, because of its copyleft restrictions for programs that link to its code. I essentially agree with folks like Craig Mundie at Microsoft, in that GPL'd code is viral. I don't know if you are a developer or not, but very large projects can contain many linked libraries. If only one of those libraries contains GPL code, the entire project must be GPL. Additionally, it's not possible to negotiate a different license in most cases, because open source projects can contain many developers. All it takes is one to refuse. You say that it's obvious that Facebook won't open up their source, why is that obvious? Slashdot did. Kuro5hin did. Neither of them is facebook, but there are plenty of people out there who have no problem open sourcing their code. If you need to keep your code closed-source to make a profit, more power to you –– nobody's telling you that you can't. But if you decide to use software that has been released for free, under the GPL, you have to release your code as well. It's just a term of the license –– abide by it or write your own code. Slashdot was created by geeks for geeks. Slashdot is hardly an entrepreneurial endeavor. Facebook is meant to turn a profit. They are actively expanding and pursuing obvious profit avenues. Do you expect Google to release the source to google docs or Gmail anytime soon? To clarify a bit –– why do you think you should have a right to integrate with whatever web service you're talking about, without following the license agreement to which you must agree in order to use the code someone else wrote for you? That's a more appropriate way to frame the question than the way you did, IMHO. If you want to integrate with it w/o using a GPL library, more than likely it's entirely possible for you to implement your own library to interface with it. Most open source software uses open specifications and interfaces, and their developers publish them or make them available. You are trying to make me sound like I am wanting to make a profit off the hard work of another programmer. Hardly. As an example: I have a large application I am working on. It has a large amount of data. Data can be presented in a million formats. My software is worth money because I produce this data. I could easily add the ability to present my data in Popular Format X, but because the creators of this format released their library under the GPL, I can't use it. On the other hand, I can use many of Microsofts formats, because they make them available to me under a license I can use. It helps them (because I am making more users for their applications) and it helps me. The GPL is a cancer. Any program that contains a line of GPL'd code can never again be used in a non-GPL'd application. Ridiculous. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most open-source code is only free for private use. Now the open-source operating systems may be free but this is a design feature. It means the operating system can be modified for each use. In every case, it frees money for system administration. It isn't a communist plot by any measure. That's not accurate in any way, Keith. Most open source code is licensed under the GPL or a variant of the BSD licenses. None of those prohibit commercial use, they only disclaim liability for it. In fact, Stallman would not call any software that disallowed commercial use by the moniker "open source", or "Free / Open Source". It goes against the principles he created the GPL to protect. You're essentially wrong here. The GPL does prohibit commercial use, because the GPL is a copyleft license... if I use a GPL'd library in my software, or even make a function call to a GPL'd piece of code, I am forced to open the source to my entire application. No, I'm not "essentially" or any other way wrong here. The GPL does not, in any way, prohibit commercial use. From gnu.org: Originally Posted at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially? You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL. These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own. Originally Posted at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or commercial uses. Can I do this? No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions. GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction can be removed by the user. IF you do not wish to open source your application, then don't use GPL licensed code –– but there's no prohibition at ALL against using open source code in commercial software. Bottom line, that's how the license works. Abide by it, or don't use free code –– your call. If you want to educate yourself about the GPL, you should read the faq at gnu.org. The issue of linking to GPL libraries is far more complicated than you make it out to be. Thanks for the links to the GPL. But as someone who has written code 8 hours a day for 10+ years now, I've read it many times. It does prohibit commercial use because no commercial piece of software can open its source. Just like the gun grabbers don't want to prevent us from owning guns... they just want us to jump through 300 rings of fire offer our first born child. No need to play games with words. The GPL prevents its use in commercial software. |
|
Quoted: The GPL is a cancer. Any program that contains a line of GPL'd code can never again be used in a non-GPL'd application. Ridiculous. I'm not seeing the problem here. If you don't like the GPL, don't use it. Write your own shit under your own license and distribute it under whatever terms you want. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'd venture to say that most people would have a hard time going any extended period of time without using something that has open-source, GPL, code under it. That doesn't stop any of the companies providing those services and products from making a buck. As mentioned before, its just a different business model. There's open source software in Windows, so, yes, you'd be correct. I think most of it is BSD license, though. Not even just Windows. How many home electronics, from phones to media centers, use open source code in it? I read an article not too long ago about it. Lots of embedded stuff is switching to open-source to save dev time, and keep costs down. ETA: Not too mention have common Apache/lighttpd/etc are. You can't hit more than a couple sites without connecting to a open-source daemon. Even toasters. Seriously, Open Source software is EVERYWHERE. I want that toaster. Would be great for the office. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The GPL is a cancer. Any program that contains a line of GPL'd code can never again be used in a non-GPL'd application. Ridiculous. I'm not seeing the problem here. If you don't like the GPL, don't use it. Write your own shit under your own license and distribute it under whatever terms you want. Sounds simple. Software world is a little more interconnected than that however... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The GPL is a cancer. Any program that contains a line of GPL'd code can never again be used in a non-GPL'd application. Ridiculous. I'm not seeing the problem here. If you don't like the GPL, don't use it. Write your own shit under your own license and distribute it under whatever terms you want. Sounds simple. Software world is a little more interconnected than that however... I also don't see your objection. You want to save time by using other people's code, you play by their rules. If not, start coding. My employer uses tons and tons of open source. Matter of fact the majority of its open source. Last I checked we are plenty profitable, and the developers are happy. ETA: I am a sysadmin, and moonlight writing code. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The GPL is a cancer. Any program that contains a line of GPL'd code can never again be used in a non-GPL'd application. Ridiculous. I'm not seeing the problem here. If you don't like the GPL, don't use it. Write your own shit under your own license and distribute it under whatever terms you want. Sounds simple. Software world is a little more interconnected than that however... It sounds simple because it is. There is no need to make it harder than this. RMS isn't holding a fucking gun to your head  If you don't like the GPL, don't license any of your software under the GPL and don't use any GPL licensed software in your product. Write your own shit and do whatever the fuck you want with it. The only way the GPL is a "virus" is for people who want to re-use code and limit the freedoms of the people they redistribute the software to. But you couldn't re-use proprietary code in the first place because you never would have "seen it" to begin with. Not hard to understand |
|
Quoted: It does prohibit commercial use because no commercial piece of software can open its source. Absolutely not true. We pay Red Hat a ton of money for their software and related services. It is open source. They simply have a different business model than a company like Apple or Microsoft. |
|
If there are SOOO many self convicted Socialists and Communists in the software industry, why are the NOT developing soft ware for"the PEOPLE" giving the rights and profits to 'the PEOPLE" through the dozens of leftist organizations, or start their own,
I am sure "the PEOPLE" will appreciate thier actions and award them with food and housing in exchange for such Progressive actions. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most open-source code is only free for private use. Now the open-source operating systems may be free but this is a design feature. It means the operating system can be modified for each use. In every case, it frees money for system administration. It isn't a communist plot by any measure. That's not accurate in any way, Keith. Most open source code is licensed under the GPL or a variant of the BSD licenses. None of those prohibit commercial use, they only disclaim liability for it. In fact, Stallman would not call any software that disallowed commercial use by the moniker "open source", or "Free / Open Source". It goes against the principles he created the GPL to protect. You're essentially wrong here. The GPL does prohibit commercial use, because the GPL is a copyleft license... if I use a GPL'd library in my software, or even make a function call to a GPL'd piece of code, I am forced to open the source to my entire application. No, I'm not "essentially" or any other way wrong here. The GPL does not, in any way, prohibit commercial use. From gnu.org: Originally Posted at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially? You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL. These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own. Originally Posted at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or commercial uses. Can I do this? No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions. GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction can be removed by the user. IF you do not wish to open source your application, then don't use GPL licensed code –– but there's no prohibition at ALL against using open source code in commercial software. Bottom line, that's how the license works. Abide by it, or don't use free code –– your call. If you want to educate yourself about the GPL, you should read the faq at gnu.org. The issue of linking to GPL libraries is far more complicated than you make it out to be. Thanks for the links to the GPL. But as someone who has written code 8 hours a day for 10+ years now, I've read it many times. It does prohibit commercial use because no commercial piece of software can open its source. Just like the gun grabbers don't want to prevent us from owning guns... they just want us to jump through 300 rings of fire offer our first born child. No need to play games with words. The GPL prevents its use in commercial software. Bullshit. I've already posted several free/open source projects that are extremely successful. Darwin, Android, RedHat. Ring a bell? All of them are open source, and all of them are making their producers TONS of money. The most successful smartphones of all time are based on open source operating systems (iphone is based off FreeBSD, Android is Linux). Did you know that? You can download the source code to Darwin and Android, right now, and use it for anything you like. And yet Apple and Google continue to make money off of it. Impossible!! How can this be? They're capable of thinking outside the tiny proprietary box you've boxed yourself into. You claim you know the GPL –– you obviously do not. If you don't like the GPL, don't use GPL code. Write your own. I think fiver already said it, but I'll say it again –– you would never have seen the code if it weren't released under the GPL, so you'd have had to write it yourself anyway. You're complaining that someone is giving you free code. If you don't like the conditions of that free gift, don't accept it –– nobody's holding a gun to your head, telling you to use GPL code and open source your application. Hell, there are even ways you can legally link to GPL code in some cases without open sourcing your application. And you don't have to release your code to the whole world, even if you do open source your whole application –– only to the people to whom you distribute your application. You'd know this, if you knew the GPL. |
|
Having control over my intellectual property is most certainly a conservative trait. If I GPL something, I've made a decision to share my work with others, and allow them to use and modify it. In return, I'm setting up some ground rules, namely that you will keep my work (and yours, based on my work) free and open. I created it, not you, and those are my rules. If you don't like that, write your own damn code. I'm not forcing you to use my stuff. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most open-source code is only free for private use. Now the open-source operating systems may be free but this is a design feature. It means the operating system can be modified for each use. In every case, it frees money for system administration. It isn't a communist plot by any measure. I'm certainly not worried about a "communist plot", and again, I'm not talking about consumers. Also, there is a big difference between "free" software and open source software. The software that runs Facebook is free for us all to use (and they can still turn a handsome profit from ads), but they obviously aren't going to open their source up. However, if I am developing a large piece of software (hopefully for profit) and I need to utilize an GPL'd open source library in order to make my application integrate with a popular service, I am forced to open the source to my entire application. The idea that applying a license like the GPL to a library will prevent any future closed source software from using it is ridiculous IMO. Why is that ridiculous? If I create a library, and make the source code freely available under the GPL, why is it ridiculous that you would have to abide by it? If you don't want to abide by the GPL, you are free to negotiate a different license with the person who holds the copyright on the code, or simply don't use the library that somebody provided to the open source community for free, and write your own code. I think the GNU license is ridiculous, in contrast to more reasonable licenses like the LGPL, BSD or Apache licenses, because of its copyleft restrictions for programs that link to its code. I essentially agree with folks like Craig Mundie at Microsoft, in that GPL'd code is viral. I don't know if you are a developer or not, but very large projects can contain many linked libraries. If only one of those libraries contains GPL code, the entire project must be GPL. Additionally, it's not possible to negotiate a different license in most cases, because open source projects can contain many developers. All it takes is one to refuse. You say that it's obvious that Facebook won't open up their source, why is that obvious? Slashdot did. Kuro5hin did. Neither of them is facebook, but there are plenty of people out there who have no problem open sourcing their code. If you need to keep your code closed-source to make a profit, more power to you –– nobody's telling you that you can't. But if you decide to use software that has been released for free, under the GPL, you have to release your code as well. It's just a term of the license –– abide by it or write your own code. Slashdot was created by geeks for geeks. Slashdot is hardly an entrepreneurial endeavor. Facebook is meant to turn a profit. They are actively expanding and pursuing obvious profit avenues. Do you expect Google to release the source to google docs or Gmail anytime soon? To clarify a bit –– why do you think you should have a right to integrate with whatever web service you're talking about, without following the license agreement to which you must agree in order to use the code someone else wrote for you? That's a more appropriate way to frame the question than the way you did, IMHO. If you want to integrate with it w/o using a GPL library, more than likely it's entirely possible for you to implement your own library to interface with it. Most open source software uses open specifications and interfaces, and their developers publish them or make them available. You are trying to make me sound like I am wanting to make a profit off the hard work of another programmer. Hardly. As an example: I have a large application I am working on. It has a large amount of data. Data can be presented in a million formats. My software is worth money because I produce this data. I could easily add the ability to present my data in Popular Format X, but because the creators of this format released their library under the GPL, I can't use it. On the other hand, I can use many of Microsofts formats, because they make them available to me under a license I can use. It helps them (because I am making more users for their applications) and it helps me. The GPL is a cancer. Any program that contains a line of GPL'd code can never again be used in a non-GPL'd application. Ridiculous. Slashdot has, in fact, made a TON of money over the years, and they are absolutely an "entrepreneurial endeavor". They make their money through advertising, and they've been doing it since long before Facebook was a college-only social networking site that wasn't making a penny. I know, I have had accounts on both since those days. If you want to produce your data in "popular format X", write your own library to do so. Hell, you may even be able to link to that GPL library without open sourcing your app. do some research and find out. Contact the people who wrote the library and find out if they're willing to re-license it to you under a different license. Or write your own damn library, because the specs of "popular format X" are freely available, and you can write your own code that uses them, without having to open source anything. Google has released 15 million lines of code, in over 500 projects, to the open source community. Why would you pick out only Gmail and Google Docs? It wouldn't surprise me if they do, eventually, open source them, as they've done with Wave, Android, and many others. In any case, they have released APIs to interface with Google Docs. Check out code.google.com sometime –– there's tons of code there. Yes, I do some developement in my spare time. I develop almost exclusively F/OSS code and release it under the GPL. I understand the frustration that must ensue when you find there is free code out there that you want to use, and can't, because you don't want to open source your code. That software would not exist if it were not for the GPL, because people like me would not touch it, and would not donate our time to writing that code, if we couldn't ensure it stayed free (as in speech, not beer). Find a way to be profitable without relying on your source code being closed, if you wish to use GPL code in your projects. It can be done. ETA: One more thing. It's been said in a few different ways, but I want to state it clearly. The GPL does not remove your freedoms in any way. It allows you the freedom to use copyrighted code you never could have used without it. If you don't want to abide by the GPL, the original authors' copyrights apply, and you can't use it at all. The GPL is not a "virus", it's a mechanism for those of us who develop code that we want to be free to grant you more rights than you would have had otherwise. Quoting from gnu.org: “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech”, not as in “free beer”. Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. This is not "Communism", or "Socialism", because no one is forcing you to do it. We do it, of our own free will, because we want to. |