The intent of GPL and all it's variants were not created to give away code or to promote any ideal of code freedom, it was created so the code creators could publicly release their code and still main legal rights and control of it. I've read that Stallman created GPL as a reaction to the cooperate code grab (of public/common case code) and software patents of the times (which is still occurring and a problem). So it protects the code creators rights and fosters a communal software development model where people are encouraged to "share" their code. It's not anti-commercialism since many large companies have found ways to use GPL code for profit (2ndary licensing, use it only on backend service, etc.)

There are plenty of variants of GPL which make it more commercial friendly and that's really up to the code creators themselves how commercial friendly they want to be (LGPL, GPL with linker exception, etc..).

Personally I've used many GPL and variants, and feel it has had a positive effect overall in the software industry. It hasn't stifled innovation, nor lead to increase security vulnerabilities or any of the other criticisms leveled at GPL code. GPL doesn't prevent you from downloading and learning from the code. I doubt many here would have had access to a commercial quality MMO code base any other way. Nor would have have had access to the many GPL released code base to commercial games like Quake, etc..

-ddn

Quote: Original post by ddn3
The intent of GPL and all it's variants were not created to give away code or to promote any ideal of code freedom

That's not what is written in the preamble of the GPL itself (present in the original version), nor in the GNU manifesto. It really is about promoting the ideal of code freedom.

I don't have an issue with strong copyleft (although weaker copyleft like the Mozilla Public License appeals more to me), it's the argument that we should only have strong copyleft suggested in the preamble and by the culture surrounding the GPL that has turned me against it. Unfortunately it's the largest copyleft license around and incompatible with other copyleft licenses, meaning if you want to copyleft your code and be practical you have to at least dual-license to GPL.

Sorry to derail the discussion on Ryzom. [grin].

[Edited by - Trapper Zoid on May 10, 2010 12:58:28 AM]

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid

Quote: Original post by ddn3
The intent of GPL and all it's variants were not created to give away code or to promote any ideal of code freedom

That's not what is written in the preamble of the GPL itself (present in the original version), nor in the GNU manifesto. It really is about promoting the ideal of code freedom.

Luckily, the arguably most prominent project using the GPL - the Linux kernel - demonstrates that you can use the license while at the same time very publicly and loudly railing against the more extreme ideologies of its author. It's well known that Linus Torvalds and RMS don't exactly see eye to eye on these issues.

Quote:
I don't have an issue with strong copyleft (although weaker copyleft like the Mozilla Public License appeals more to me), it's the argument that we should only have strong copyleft suggested in the preamble and by the culture surrounding the GPL that has turned me against it. Unfortunately it's the largest copyleft license around and incompatible with other copyleft licenses, meaning if you want to copyleft your code and be practical you have to at least dual-license to GPL.

I agree, the idea that anything outside strong copyleft is immoral is pretty dumb. It's a good thing preambles don't matter, people write all sorts of crazy things in them (not just in the GPL preamble).

Quote: Original post by Prefect
Luckily, the arguably most prominent project using the GPL - the Linux kernel - demonstrates that you can use the license while at the same time very publicly and loudly railing against the more extreme ideologies of its author. It's well known that Linus Torvalds and RMS don't exactly see eye to eye on these issues.

Heh. The argument between the two over the GPLv3 was the time I shifted from cautious indifference about the GPL to mistrust. With the GPLv2, I can agree with Torvalds that the license is a decent way to secure that any improvements to your project's code are available, and you could ignore all the silliness like the slagging matches between the GPL and BSD camps about which is more free and the whole GPL/Linux vs. Linux craziness.

But then the whole GPLv3 debate started. I was first mortified that so many of these projects were cool about how an outside body could just paper whatever license they wanted over what they originally picked, then shaking my head that they were schisming over the right to install your own software on a glorified VCR, then baffled that a large section of people were furious at Torvalds for sticking to his preferred license. And around the same time the iPhone came out, and the FSF staged a campaign by booking all Apple's Genius Bars to complain to the techs that their mobile phone wasn't open enough for their tastes. I think that was the point something in me snapped as it all just seemed so stupid.

Trapper that's the sanitized and populous version of GPL, the reality is it started as a backlash to cooperate code mongering and fear of complete corporate ownership of the code space. What it has become today, is a little different and they play up the "freedom" part but it's still just a strong legal framework for individual code creators who wish to release their code into the public space but not lose all rights.

see :

http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/

That gives u the historical perceptive of the people at the time. So now u can release code as GPL and a company can't take and patent it or claim "trade secret" or some other bull. And since GPL is a very mature license written and reviewed by many lawyers it's pretty ironclad, so companies can't legally steal your work.

-ddn

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid
And around the same time the iPhone came out, and the FSF staged a campaign by booking all Apple's Genius Bars to complain to the techs that their mobile phone wasn't open enough for their tastes. I think that was the point something in me snapped as it all just seemed so stupid.

And what happened to the iPhone? Well, it turns out that Apple can brick your device as they see fit, they decide what you can and can't install on it, plus a slew of other arbitrary restrictions put in place just to protect the iPhone from its owner (and non-Apple content.)

I agree that the FSF tends to be a bit on the fanatical side of things, but when it comes to iDevices I'm 100% in their camp. Also, I don't really see why your opinion on the FSF should influence your opinion on the GPL. If there was a good license that just happened to have been written by Hitler, I'd use it regardless. I'd just stay away from the optional "or later" clause.

Quote: Original post by Valderman
And what happened to the iPhone? Well, it turns out that Apple can brick your device as they see fit, they decide what you can and can't install on it, plus a slew of other arbitrary restrictions put in place just to protect the iPhone from its owner (and non-Apple content.)

And Apple has the freedom to do that. We and the FSF have the freedom to complain and buy a more open phone if we wish. We certainly aren't free to deny service to Apple's customers to make that point. (Besides which, what was that exercise going to prove besides ticking people off?).

The point is that I support the freedom of software developers to choose whatever license they feel best for their projects. That whole chain of events at the time strongly re-enforced that the stewards of the GPL don't have high regard for that freedom.

Quote: Also, I don't really see why your opinion on the FSF should influence your opinion on the GPL.

Because it's their license. They've stuck an irremovable preamble at the front that explains how the choice of the GPL is an ideological one. And when it comes down to it, I think that's my main sticking point. It's hard to for me personally to use the license purely for practical considerations when the wording of the license is written in such an ideological fashion. I think I wouldn't nearly have such a problem if the license was just a list of legalese with just a line or two and a link explaining that the license was written for the GNU project. Licenses should be practical, not a manifesto.

Anyway, I've sidetracked this discussion enough. [smile] You just caught me at a time when I'd been reading up on licenses again I just wanted to explain since you asked why there's something about the GPL that bugs me more than other copyleft licenses. I'd be happy to debate this more in a pure GPL thread, but this is deflecting the topic away from Ryzom.

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid

Quote: Original post by ddn3
The intent of GPL and all it's variants were not created to give away code or to promote any ideal of code freedom

That's not what is written in the preamble of the GPL itself (present in the original version), nor in the GNU manifesto. It really is about promoting the ideal of code freedom.

I don't have an issue with strong copyleft (although weaker copyleft like the Mozilla Public License appeals more to me), it's the argument that we should only have strong copyleft suggested in the preamble and by the culture surrounding the GPL that has turned me against it. Unfortunately it's the largest copyleft license around and incompatible with other copyleft licenses, meaning if you want to copyleft your code and be practical you have to at least dual-license to GPL.

Sorry to derail the discussion on Ryzom. [grin].

Personally i find the MPL to be practically useless since the copyleft mechanic is too weak, allowing proprietary additions as long as they're kept in separate source files makes the license almost identical to the BSDL from a practical point of view (Anyone who would contribute major improvements to a MPL project is likely to do the same to a BSDL project and no sane person keeps minor fixes for themselves when they can get someone else to maintain them)

Quote: Original post by ddn3
It's not anti-commercialism since many large companies have found ways to use GPL code for profit (2ndary licensing, use it only on backend service, etc.)

This case is no longer allowed in GPLv3 as you must release the source code no matter what. You can no longer use it as a backend service and not release the code, nor can you only license to select parties. Basically the latest version makes the GPL completely incompatible with commercial software.

Quote: Original post by Saruman

Quote: Original post by ddn3
It's not anti-commercialism since many large companies have found ways to use GPL code for profit (2ndary licensing, use it only on backend service, etc.)

This case is no longer allowed in GPLv3 as you must release the source code no matter what. You can no longer use it as a backend service and not release the code, nor can you only license to select parties. Basically the latest version makes the GPL completely incompatible with commercial software.

Using the GPL on a backend service is perfectly fine with GPLv3 and doesn't require you to publish any code for that service, licensing to select parties has always been allowed, nothing changed in v3 in that area. (Both v2 and v3 grants those you license it to the right to give or sell licenses to others though so in the end you can't really control who obtains a license, but there isn't anything new in v3 there).

Commercial distribution is also perfectly legal

You might want to actually read the license before commenting on it.

The only real problem with GPLv3 is that it doesn't allow you to sell hardware that only runs signed GPLv3 software, the rest of the changes are actually fairly sane. (not requiring acceptance of the license for ancillery propagation as a result of recieving a copy via p2p is a great addition, as is the explicit patent licensing and APL compatibility)