●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byimpaledsunset ( 1337701 ) writes:
That's why I use real free and open source licenses, non abominations like the GPL. Making your software "free" and then fighting people using it with legal pressure, eh?
I put everything in the public domain, and I sleep well at night without having nightmares that someone might have violated my license.
twitter
facebook
bysakdoctor ( 1087155 ) writes:
Stallman in a bikini.
Ok, there's your nightmare material for tonight.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byProfane MuthaFucka ( 574406 ) writes:
This will help you visualize:
http://www.keepaustinweird.com/images/leslie.jpg [keepaustinweird.com]
byDMiax ( 915735 ) writes:
If I promise to license all my future code GPLv3 will you remove this image from my head, please?
byAnonymous Coward writes:
I like keeping my software free for everyone for ever. I'm glad you enjoy end users being robbed of their freedom.
bydfghjk ( 711126 ) writes:
Public domain does keep "my software" free for everyone "for ever". It can't do anything but that.
GPL is about forcing future software to also be free. Not using it doesn't rob anyone of anything.
byasdf7890 ( 1518587 ) writes:
GPL is about forcing future software to also be free. Not using it doesn't rob anyone of anything.
GPL is about forcing future software that uses on GPLed code to also be free. You don't want to be held by the GPL? Then don't use GPLed code. Is it really that difficult?
Got GPLed code in your project by accident? Then you didn't do due diligence properly. Your fault, not the GPL's fault.
Got GPLed code in your project by no fault of your own (bad contractor, used a library or other source that itself broke GPL, or some such reason)? That does sometimes happen and here you need to discuss it with the owner of the affected code.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byTheRaven64 ( 641858 ) writes:
You don't want to be held by the GPL? Then don't use GPLed code. Is it really that difficult?
Yes, sometimes. Here's a concrete example. I library that I wrote uses libavcodec. My library is MIT licensed, and someone who uses my library also uses an Apache licensed library (I can't remember it's name; something for parsing MPEG-4 atoms) and released his code under the BSD license. Libavcodec is normally LGPL, so this is fine. Unfortunately, there are half a dozen or so optional files in libavcodec (e.g. some MMX optimisations) that are GPL'd. Some distributions include these in their binary ve
byKWTm ( 808824 ) writes:
"You don't want to be held by the GPL? Then don't use GPLed code. Is it really that difficult?"
Yes, sometimes. Here's a concrete example. I library that I wrote uses libavcodec. My library is MIT licensed, and someone who uses my library also uses an Apache licensed library (I can't remember it's name; something for parsing MPEG-4 atoms) and released his code under the BSD license. Libavcodec is normally LGPL, so this is fine. Unfortunately, there are half a dozen or so optional files in libavcodec (e.g. so
byTheRaven64 ( 641858 ) writes:
You're missing the point. The question was whether it is hard to avoid GPL'd code. I did not use any GPL'd code when writing my library. The person writing an application using it did not use any GPL'd code. The person creating the package for Debian was unable to do so because of the GPL. Now, I'm fine with Debian not carrying this code. I don't use Debian, and there aren't many Debian users whose opinions I care about. I don't lose anything. Only Debian users (and maybe users of a few other system
byTrue Grit ( 739797 ) * writes:
The problem is not mine,
In other words, *you* didn't have a problem avoiding GPL'd code, which was the GGP's point.
it belongs to downstream distributors who find that the GPL has snuck in via the actions of another package maintainer.
Except that the 'downstream distributor' and the 'package maintainer' in this case are one in the same, the Debian distro and a Debian package maintainer. Your example is not one of GPL'd code mixing with non-GPL'd code by 'accident', your example is merely one of someone at Debian recognizing that *their* distro had a particular problem here and then *avoiding* that outcome... which is precisely what you say is supp
byTheRaven64 ( 641858 ) writes:
BSD and MIT, yes. Apache, no. The GPLv3 has a specific exemption for the clauses in the Apache license that are not compatible with the GPLv2. You can not use GPLv2 code and Apache Licensed code in the same project.
●urrent threshold.
byCarewolf ( 581105 ) writes:
GPL is about forcing future software that uses on GPLed code to also be free. You don't want to be held by the GPL? Then don't use GPLed code. Is it really that difficult?
Non-sense. Anyone can use GPLed code, regardless of what they want to do with it.
If you don't want to be tied by the GPL, then don't modify and distribute it. Now that should be really easy to avoid for anyone who is not evil.
byMobyDisk ( 75490 ) writes:
If you don't want to be tied by the GPL, then don't modify and distribute it.
I think you mean "don't link to it and distribute it."
byCarewolf ( 581105 ) writes:
Linking is only a problem if your product is derived from the GPL code. If you link to it and never use it, there is no problem. If you dynamically load and link to a GPL plugin, you may be derived, but if your product works perfectly well without that plugin, and if you don't even ship that plugin yourself, then your product of course can not be logically be derived.
I admit that determining what is a derived product is hard, and the easiest rule is just refering to linking, but it is not quite that simple
bybws111 ( 1216812 ) writes:
Not as cut-and-dried as you might think. First, it is not just modifying that is a problem, it is linking with. Here is a real example. My company developed a fairly large system for internal use, which linked to some GPL components. This system contains some trade secrets. All perfectly legal under the GPL, and not evil. Several years go by, and the company decides to contract out some work. This contracted work means the contractor needs a copy of this software: extremely big problem. Because of t
byCarewolf ( 581105 ) writes:
So what is the hard part? You shouldn't have used GPL code in the first place if you are not willing to share your derived products. Besides if you hire the contractors as temps they are part of your company and you would still be protected by the internal-use clause.
bySharpFang ( 651121 ) writes:
The hard part is that as a start-up they used a cheap and available system that allowed them to get going ASAP. They saved the months of development costs early, when these costs meant to be or not to be.
GPL is for corporations like the dark side of the power, a tempting, easy and available, but extremely corrupting.
● current threshold.
bySharpFang ( 651121 ) writes:
Currently, I'm working on a big commercial embedded project which is based on Linux.
Most of it will remain proprietary and closed source, parts will be licensed subsystems that aren't only proprietary, they cost arm and leg, took years to write and there's no snowflake's chance in hell they would ever go GPL. And since our system will depend on them, it can't go GPL. But parts will have to be released. Fixed broken CAN kernel module. Changes to Busybox on top of which this is running. A short and sweet ker
●urrent threshold.
●current threshold.
byjim_v2000 ( 818799 ) writes:
Meh, GPL does not qualify as "free" to me. There are strings attached that do not allow you to do anything you like with the code. If someone wants to use my code in a closed source project, I really don't care. My code is still out there for others to use.
byjim_v2000 ( 818799 ) writes:
Please try to make sense when you post things. It helps us to understand your point.
byRhacman ( 1528815 ) writes:
I tend to agree and I think that there is a place for both GPL and no strings attached code. The intent of the GPL is to encourage other developers to contribute to the open source community without furthering the ends of closed-source commercial or other proprietary endeavors. The problem stems from people not realising that the GPL comes with an agenda attached. Personally I prefer the MIT (X11) licence both for code I use and code I write. My aim would be to know that I produced something that helped
byRennt ( 582550 ) writes:
You may choose to define "free" however you like (this is an acknowledged problem with the term), however when the context is free software, the Free Software Definition [wikipedia.org] is fairly well established.
●run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)
●study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1)
●redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2)
●improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3)
You are, of course, also
byjim_v2000 ( 818799 ) writes:
Hate to ruin Rennt's Law for you, but I have never used BSD nor am I familiar with any licensing associated with it.
byRennt ( 582550 ) writes:
Really? Damn. It is pretty fresh TBH, might need some refinement - probability of .95 maybe. I'll count the posts in this discussion but am on a phone right now.
Anyway you should look into BSD. It really is very good and "free" as in "I don't give a fuck what you do with the code", you'll probably like it. Just do us a favour and drop the GPL baiting.
byTrue Grit ( 739797 ) * writes:
but I have never used BSD nor am I familiar with any licensing associated with it.
You probably *have* used BSD-licensed code, you just don't know that you did. BSD-licensed code is 'more free' in that it can even find itself incorporated into proprietary products whose users never know about it. Some see this particular aspect of being 'more free' as a good thing, but others don't, hence the existence & popularity of the GPL.
Pick whichever you prefer; choice is good.
● current threshold.
●urrent threshold.
byBlakey Rat ( 99501 ) writes:
What freedom are end users losing if a company includes public domain code in their software? Please provide realistic and practical examples that prove you've thought about the concept longer than 15 milliseconds.
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
They lose the freedom to tinker with what would have been open, whatever it was that the company theoretically closed.
If that's the component they're struggling to fix it could be all-important.
I found a minor bug in Rubygems the other day simply by reading the source. If it wasn't available I'd still be wondering what was supposed to happen and tweaking my code trying to make it work.
Solitaire doesn't run better just because it's open sourced so many users might not even notice, but the ones who poke aroun
byBlakey Rat ( 99501 ) writes:
They lose the freedom to tinker with what would have been open, whatever it was that the company theoretically closed.
So you think that if a company uses a public domain component, it's *no longer* in the public domain? Or what are you saying here-- it makes no sense to me. How can a company "close" something that's already been put into the public domain?
If that's the component they're struggling to fix it could be all-important.
If it's a large product, and the one component that's busted is in the public
●urrent threshold.
byDeadCatX2 ( 950953 ) writes:
If it's in the public domain, how is anyone robbed of freedom? Go grab yourself gcc, download the source, and build it yourself.
Or did you post as AC because you know that argument holds no water?
byRhacman ( 1528815 ) writes:
I'm not sure I understand how the GPL protects against this scenario. As the malicious developer I can strip the license off the GPL'd code, say that I wrote it first, and be back in the same courtroom scenario you mentioned.
● current threshold.
bysirsnork ( 530512 ) writes:
Surely you would suggest they grab a public domain compiler given your stance on the GPL?
byDeadCatX2 ( 950953 ) writes:
What stance?
I said that code in the public domain can't be locked away by someone who then puts it in their closed-source system. I said absolutely nothing about the merits or flaws of the GPL.
Here, you can have your words back now, they don't fit in my mouth very well.
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
Imagine FTP for instance. It's available, open, and people use it. So someone like MS implements FTP, but closes the source.
Even if they did go and get FTP source and compile it, it wouldn't work without a ton of tweaking, so they're out the ability to tweak their OS.
Oh sure, the people who are already uber-coders don't lose. But the users who might have been coders had they had more source available to look at, they lose. As does everyone they could have helped. Not any source helps here, just the source t
byCarrot007 ( 37198 ) writes:
No sure which side you are arguing for there.
>Users are hurt by not having source?
Yes indeed they are.
Users are also hurt by having GPL source.
The GPL irks me a little (though not much) because i want the source because someone wants me to have it, not they are forced to.
Being nice because you have to is not being nice.
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
Being nice because you have to is not being nice.
I care? Am I your mom?
At some small cost to the jerks and lazy the code (and other code) is available to more users, including me.
And you *only* lose the ability to call the code your own and close it away.
Seems to me all your users lose the ability to read the source code for the applications they use...
byDeadCatX2 ( 950953 ) writes:
No one is stopping you from playing with the code. If you fork an open-source project and close that source, the original still exists. If the closed one gets improvements that make the open one look quaint, certainly there are more than enough uber-coders to reverse engineer the changes and add them back into the public domain.
I am certain you could have learned to program by reading a different set of source code had the one that you read not been available. Certainly there will always be open-source p
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
But forcing all derivative works to be open is no better than forcing all derivative works to be closed.
In your morality, maybe. But in the real world, forcing source to be open helps users far more than hurts them.
No one is stopping you from playing with the code. If you fork an open-source project and close that source, the original still exists.
Why do all you types say this, as if it isn't clear?
"What? No?! When someone uses my source my copy doesn't go away? Thanks Mister, I never knew that!"
Yes, but it doesn't acquire new features on its own, just sitting there.
If I am building a product for my company to sell, I have to avoid GPL code like it was HIV positive. That can hurt the user ...
Yeah, because nobody ever built a product around an open product before.
Sure, it doesn't fit all business models but neither does paying for a $10k library.
Seriously, do most users care more if A) the program works or B) if the source is open?
Seriously, do most dri
byDeadCatX2 ( 950953 ) writes:
But in the real world, forcing source to be open helps users far more than hurts them.
In "the real world", more people use closed-source programs than open-source programs. This is slowly starting to change, but so long as you're obsessed with "the real world", you can't ignore this fact. There would be a lot less software written if you were forced to share your source code, and I totally fail to see how less software helps users in any way.
Why do all you types say this, as if it isn't clear?
Because "all
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
You don't care about feeding the families of those programmers who are striving to make a product for a market
And you don't care about "the children", the endangered California Condor, or starving fans of Oscar Wilde.
What? You never claimed to?
Huh, funny that.
nor do you care for their users for whom such software would not exist without financial incentives.
I dislike the idea of people who don't share tools. Why would I like companies that are like that?
If there's a market it'll get filled.
There would be a lot less software written if you were forced to share your source code, and I totally fail to see how less software helps users in any way.
Totally specious. If everyone were forced to use my code despite the GPL it would be because my code was so amazing that the benefits outweighed the obligations. It's like complaining about the Quake4 engine being pricey.
In "the real world", more people use closed-source programs than open-source programs.
Exactl
●your current threshold.
byL4t3r4lu5 ( 1216702 ) writes:
Ever consider that the latest and greatest feature in the latest and greatest, multi-million unit shipping product may be using code you developed?
Ever wanted to maybe boost your pay by jumping to a new company, based on that?
Tough shit. They don't have to say you had anything to do with it. They can just collect the bounty and laugh all the way to the bank. They might have a toast in your name for being a baffoon. Hell, they can even say they developed it themselves, as long as they can read what you've
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
bystiggle ( 649614 ) writes:
The GPL protects you only is you use it to defend yourself.
So if they are using GPL code without acknowledging the author & GPL status of the code then they are opening themselves up for a case against them.
How many people know that GPL software powers their HDTV? You'll be suprised how many Digital HDTV these days contain GPL code.
● your current threshold.
byjim_v2000 ( 818799 ) writes:
>They don't have to say you had anything to do with it. They can just collect the bounty and laugh all the way to the bank.
I'd assume that anyone who puts their code in the public domain doesn't really give a crap who does what with it. It's not like your code is somehow magical and no one else could ever have come up with it. At best you're just saving someone else some time.
bydangitman ( 862676 ) writes:
Hell, they can even say they developed it themselves, as long as they can read what you've coded.
Not true, actually. That would be plagiarism, which is entirely different to using someone else's code. It's the difference between quoting someone in a paper you wrote, and claiming that you were the originator of the quote. It falls under the "Moral Rights" clauses of copyright law, and beyond that under almost any ethics system and human decency.
byTheRaven64 ( 641858 ) writes:
It falls under the "Moral Rights" clauses of copyright law
Note that, while moral rights are quite well-protected in the EU, US Federal copyright law does not recognise the concept. In some states there is quite broad protection, for example in California and in others, such as New York, it only pertains to certain forms of copyright works.
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
But if the source isn't visible they aren't claiming your source is theirs, just that the product is theirs. Microsoft claims Windows is theirs despite the theoretical heritage of the FTP client, for example.
bydangitman ( 862676 ) writes:
But if the source isn't visible they aren't claiming your source is theirs, just that the product is theirs. Microsoft claims Windows is theirs despite the theoretical heritage of the FTP client, for example.
So, how is licensing under the GPL going to stop dishonest pricks from being dishonest pricks? Douchey people are going to do that anyway, regardless of what license you choose (if any). But the point is that most humans regard plagiarism as a much more serious offense than mere copyright infringement. Most people see copying something to use for yourself as a more-or-less acceptable desire. But lying and claiming credit for something that somebody else did, is a pretty serious sin.
byTrue Grit ( 739797 ) * writes:
So, how is licensing under the GPL going to stop dishonest pricks from being dishonest pricks?
It won't, for the same reason that a law can't stop a law-breaker. A law (or a software license) is just words on paper.
Note however, that in the GP's example of the legacy of 'weakly' licensed open source code in MS's closed-source Windows, MS wasn't being dishonest. The license of the code *allowed* them to do what they did. They could not legally do the same with GPL code however.
But the point is that most humans regard plagiarism as a much more serious offense than mere copyright infringement.
My gut says that most humans don't even understand the legal distinctions between those 2 things...
But lying and claiming credit for something that somebody else did, is a pretty serious sin.
In most parts of the worl
byBlakey Rat ( 99501 ) writes:
Ever consider that the latest and greatest feature in the latest and greatest, multi-million unit shipping product may be using code you developed?
Ever wanted to maybe boost your pay by jumping to a new company, based on that?
Tough shit. They don't have to say you had anything to do with it.
If you cared about that, why would you put your code in the public domain?
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Making your software "free" and then fighting people using it with legal pressure, eh?
Given that the GPL puts no restrictions on *use* you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
byjim_v2000 ( 818799 ) writes:
If someone doesn't want to make the source for their project available, they can't do that with GPL'd code in the project. I'd call that a restriction.
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
Wah. And if someone wants to make a project with Microsoft code instead of GPLed code - oh yeah, they can't because MS code isn't even visible, let alone available.
Besides, why would we care if they want to use free software but are unwilling to extend that benefit to others? That's the very definition of a complete fucking asshole. At that, let them pay for it.
Why do people (like you) keep posting these "But, then they can't horde the source" things as if giving assholes the ability to close source wasn't
byjim_v2000 ( 818799 ) writes:
Because I don't give two shits if someone closes or opens their source code. There's nothing magical about someone's source code that can't be reproduced by someone else.
●neath your current threshold.
●ath your current threshold.
byshutdown -p now ( 807394 ) writes:
May I advance a humble proposal that any post along the lines of "GPL is better than BSDL" or "BSDL is better than GPL" is modded Flamebait and/or Troll on sight? Personally, I'm sick of these endless and pointless fights over nothing, where arguments boil down to who is "more free", with either side persisting in the claim that their definition of "free" is the One and Only True Free.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byXtifr ( 1323 ) writes:
Seconded here. I've been listening to the "debates" for years and years and haven't heard anything new from either side in so long I can't remember. Lets just short-circuit the whole thing here: BSD fans want to legalize slavery and murder, and GPL fans want to set up communist dictatorships and destroy the world's economy. As long as someone can "prove" that I'm evil no matter which one I support, I figure I might as well go whole-hog and be totally evil by supporting both, each in their own place. Ia!
byChris Burke ( 6130 ) writes:
BSD fans want to legalize slavery and murder, and GPL fans want to set up communist dictatorships and destroy the world's economy.
Yeah, well mycommunist dictatorship would have slavery and murder. Also blackjack and hookers.
byspirit of reason ( 989882 ) writes:
It's really a silly argument. The BSD license does have fewer restrictions, but that doesn't make it better than the other. I think people need to understand that the two licenses have different goals in mind, and developers need to respect the wishes of the rights holder. Likewise, developers should take care in what license they use.
My guess is that the BSD license's intent was to simply give credit where credit was due and to allow researchers to develop code for anyone to use, in proprietary or open sou
bypetrus4 ( 213815 ) writes:
But if you hate the GPL and FSF, you might not want to use the BSD license. They can use your code too. ;)
Add a fourth clause.
"While re-licensing is, in every other case, entirely permissible, (including proprietary closed-source licenses) re-issuing code governed by this license, in whole or in part, in source or binary form, including derivative works, under any license issued by the Free Software Foundation, is expressly prohibited."
bydbc ( 135354 ) writes:
Indeed. People should chose thier license they way they choose a screwdriver, not they way they choose a religion. GPL serves some goals better, BSD servers other goals better. Clarify your goals, and choose the license that best serves them.
●neath your current threshold.
bypetrus4 ( 213815 ) writes:
It's sadly predictable that the parent was modded -1, Troll. It should have rightfully been modded +1, Insightful.
Public domain isthe most morally desirable way to license code, in truth; but that is, of course, why virtually no one does it.
byUngrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) writes:
I put everything in the public domain, and I sleep well at night without having nightmares that someone might have violated my license.
Then here's a nightmare for you:
- A serious bug is discovered in your wonderful PD product. (Maybe some subtle security hole that the malware gangs find and exploit.)
- Somebody makes a fix AND COPYRIGHTS THE FIXED VERSION.
- You can't import the fix to YOUR version without violating the copyright.
- None of your users can fix the bug either. T
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Bullshit.
First: He naturally has copyright on his fix. Not on your code. And that is true regardless of the license. He has the same copyright if the product is GPL licensed.
Second: Why can none of my users fix the bug? What makes the other person so special?
Third: I still have the code. Why can't I expand and improve that?
And here is a nightmare for you:
- A serious bug is discovered in your service application which is distributed under GPL.
- Somebody makes a fix AND COPYRIGHTS THAT FIX.
- You can't import
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
●ply beneath your current threshold.
bypetrus4 ( 213815 ) writes:
Checkout why Wine moved from BSD to GPL.
According to Wikipedia, it looks as though the Wine developers had an attack of reciprocity paranoia. This invalidates the BSD license...how, exactly?
There is some bullshit here which needs debunking. Proprietary forks of a non-copyleft project do not inherently "lock out a project's original authors from the subsequent development of a project," at all. Under a non-copyleft license, said original developers never lose their own code, at all. Someone else can fork it, which is fine; and it's still fine
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
bypetrus4 ( 213815 ) writes:
Nope. Try a more reliable source like the Wine mailing lists.
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to do this, because I know you're going to continue to think the same thing regardless, but...
I'm looking at http://www.winehq.org/history [winehq.org] which I assume you're hopefully going to agree, is likely a reliable source. ;) I've tried searching for mailing list entries, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of stuff out there, at least that Google is showing up.
Anyway, there seem to be a couple of points.
a) RMS helpfully pointed out that, at the time anyway, the BSD license was cons
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
●y beneath your current threshold.
●neath your current threshold.
●ath your current threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
ion
●
●
Submit Story
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes.
-- Mickey Mouse
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...