●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
Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
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This discussion has been archived.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.
bybetterunixthanunix ( 980855 ) writes:
A copyright ruling...but it is good for freedom...
Head explodes
twitter
facebook
byNursie ( 632944 ) writes:
The GPL vs BSD license argument never gets old for some folk does it?
Some say BSD-like licenses are bad because they permit people to use the code in a closed, non-free way.
Some say GPL-like licenses are bad because they forbid the same behaviour.
Each to their own, but the GPL allows people who contribute to the public good to make sure that their work is not abused (as they see it), by taking their effort, profiting from it and not sharing back. If that's not the way you roll, so be it, but it gives freedom to users that the BSD license does not.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byCrudely_Indecent ( 739699 ) writes:
...profiting from GPL'd code.
The parent included an additional qualifier that you seem to have missed:
profiting from it and not sharing back
byCrudely_Indecent ( 739699 ) writes:
I knew I shouldn't have responded to an AC. I should've followed my first instinct to mod you down instead of participating.
● current threshold.
bychromas ( 1085949 ) writes:
1) What's the motivation to take someone else's work and not contribute back 2) ??? 3) Profit!
●rrent threshold.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Each to their own, but the GPL allows people who contribute to the public good to make sure that their work is not abused (as they see it), by taking their effort, profiting from it and not sharing back.
Key words emphasized there. As I see it, if I am truly contributing to the public good, then that should allow anyone (the "public") to do what they want with that contribution (the "good"). Even if that means using it in a closed way. It does not detract from the original contribution which is still there for anyone else to use.
I personally don't believe that it is in good form to expect something back from a voluntary contribution. I do it because I want to do it, not because I want something out of it.
If that's not the way you roll, so be it, but it gives freedom to users that the BSD license does not.
Just as the BSD licence gives freedom to users that the GPL licence does not. They are different types of freedom but, objectively, one is not "more free" than the other.
byTimothy Brownawell ( 627747 ) writes:
I think it's more of a theoretical vs practical kind of thing: copyleft gives users more theoretical rights (that they mostly can't use anyway, not being programmers...) should anyone actually write software, while BSD makes it easier to actually write that software in the first place.
byIshmaelDS ( 981095 ) writes:
How does the license style make it "easier to actually write that software in the first place."? I understand you may have more people interested in writing the code if it's able to be closed source, but that doesn't make it easier to code.
byAlecC ( 512609 ) writes:
It makes it commercially easier - that is, it makes it easier to get paid to do it. In the real world, coding takes time, and time is money.
Some things get done because people want to do them of their own accord - GPL land.
Some thing get done because people want to sell stuff - BSD land.
Neither is right or wrong: they serve different needs.
bykdemetter ( 965669 ) writes:
"Tell me how someone giving their own code the BSD license makes them money that doing under the GPL doesn't?"
Simple : say there is GPL'ed software that allows you to use an editor in html ( like CKEditor ) .
Now , say that i create blogging software , and sell this to users , and i want to add this editor to it , so users can easily add content for their blogs.
To make it work correctly , i rewrite some aspects of the editor , so that it works perfectly.
If i do want to sell my product , in this case GPL requ
bymarcello_dl ( 667940 ) writes:
If your changes are small, you are making money off the guy who wrote the original BSD licensed code, thus gaining an advantage on him. He loses money. Yours is a counterexample actually :D
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
Pft, BSDL is all about denying choice to users.
●your current threshold.
●our current threshold.
bysilanea ( 1241518 ) writes:
[...] BSD makes it easier to actually write that software in the first place.
Could you please elaborate on this? The use of third-party code aside, the choice of a license does not influence the creation of a software in any way that I can see. Licenses only come into play after the software is written, when it is distributed to someone other than the creator.
byTimothy Brownawell ( 627747 ) writes:
Sure, but having to figure out your business plan up front brings licensing considerations back around to before you start.
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
If your business plan involves taking something someone else wrote and released for everyone and hiding away your modifications to it to prevent "competition", you're an asshole.
BSDL means being able to be an asshole to users because someone was nice to you. Wow, what an important "freedom".
●r current threshold.
●r current threshold.
bycparker15 ( 779546 ) writes:
The main difference is that the BSD gives developers the freedom to deprive users and other developers of the fruits of somebody else's labor. Whereas the GPL forces all developers to make sure everybody has the same freedom they had, or else.
The importance of this distinction depends on a developer's priorities. Would you rather play nice with the rest of the developer community and share alike, or would you rather take what you can get without giving back (or encourage others to do this)?
● current threshold.
●urrent threshold.
byChibi Merrow ( 226057 ) writes:
but it gives freedom to users that the BSD license does not.
Or, you could say, it TAKES freedom from users (ie: developers using a library) that the BSD license does not.
Not saying BSD is better, just saying GPL doesn't give "more freedoms" on a whole, it just assigns them to different people.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byChris Burke ( 6130 ) writes:
It takes the freedom to take away freedom.
I will never, ever, feel any sympathy for anyone who thinks they are actually less free as a consequence.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byonefriedrice ( 1171917 ) writes:
It isn't quite right to say that the GPL takes freedom away from anyone, since there is no obligation to use GPL-licensed code.
Well, duh. There's no obligation to use any code; that doesn't mean we can't talk about the (di)similarities of each license in terms of freedoms given or taken away (held back). I'm all for the proper use of language in otherwise ambiguous situations, but let's not cloud the issue with pointless discussions about semantics when the meaning is perfectly clear.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byorasio ( 188021 ) writes:
but it gives freedom to users that the BSD license does not.
Or, you could say, it TAKES freedom from users (ie: developers using a library) that the BSD license does not.
Wrong. It takes freedom from those developers only while they are wearing their distributor hats. They can use GPLed libraries as much as they like. They are just limited from distributing in a way that takes freedom away from users. Their freedom as _users_ is not harmed.
Not saying BSD is better, just saying GPL doesn't give "more freedoms" on a whole, it just assigns them to different people.
You are right here. It takes freedom away from distributors, and gives it _all_ to users. Just they are not necessarily different people, just different roles.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byunix1 ( 1667411 ) writes:
Nice - GPL translated in RBAC.
byDeadCatX2 ( 950953 ) writes:
What "freedom" does a user have if the software he wants never exists in the first place, because the GPLed code prevents a company from investing time and money into the product that the user wants?
Most users don't give a fuck about having access to the source code. Whether the source is open or closed has approximately zero value to them. They want a product. They want to buy it from a company who spent time and money ensuring that it will work, won't lose data, won't catch on fire, etc. A company tha
byNotBornYesterday ( 1093817 ) writes:
What "freedom" does a user have if the software he wants never exists in the first place, because the GPLed code prevents a company from investing time and money into the product that the user wants?
The user has the same freedoms he always has. They have the freedom to write their own software. Or pay to have it done. Or buy it from a closed source software house. Or stand on their heads and yodel, for all I or the GPL care.
GPL doesn't prevent companies from developing code. It prevents them from using other peoples' code if they are not willing to abide by certain conditions. Every piece of software these days, unless in the public domain, comes with some sort of restrictions attached. Don't
byorasio ( 188021 ) writes:
What "freedom" does a user have if the software he wants never exists in the first place, because the GPLed code prevents a company from investing time and money into the product that the user wants?
You couldn't be more wrong.
The GPLed code can't prevent companies from investing time and money.
The only way someone could prevent other companies from building stuff would be using patents, and the GPL doesn't involve filing patents.
The GPL enables us to form a walled community inside which we get to share our stuff, and not get ripped off. Companies are free to join our community, or not do it. They can stay outside and build their own stuff, or come inside and share with us the respect for users freedom.
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
What "freedom" does a user have if the software he wants never exists in the first place, because the GPLed code prevents a company from investing time and money into the product that the user wants?
If the GPL prevented you from "investing time and money" into a product you were either 1) unable to close the GPLed code for "your" product, or 2) had an idea for a niche already filled by a free alternative and weren't needed. Neither hurts the user.
Most users don't give a fuck about having access to the source code. Whether the source is open or closed has approximately zero value to them.
Bullshit. Most users don't know if their software is open source, but it has tremendous value to them if it is. That's the guarantee you won't lose your data when your key suddenly stops working.
They want to buy it from a company who spent time and money ensuring that it will work, won't lose data, won't catch on fire, etc. A company that provides a warranty and support.
Yeah, right. Which software company provides a warranty? Microsof
byAnonymous Coward writes:
developers users
Just have a look at the number of users of, say, Windows compared to the number of Windows developers.
YOU want the freedom to take the freedoms away from the users. Increased freedom for you: 1 unit. Decreased freedom for 10,000 users: 1 unit each.
Net loss: 9,999 units.
The only other alternative is that you think that what code you develop will have NO MORE than one person looking to learn from the code, expand it or just read it for giggles. And even in the case where ONLY ONE person you'r
byam 2k ( 217885 ) writes:
Your post and all of its replies make an assumption that is not true most of the time: They assume that when a developer uses a library/program to create a product and then discovers that it is GPL'd, that this develop goes along and GPL's his product as well. This is not how it works.
In reality, developers that are worth their money check the license beforehand, and when there's the GPL involved for a product that's not planned to be GPL'd, either the library/program is not used, or the whole project is sc
byNursie ( 632944 ) writes:
Which is exactly the aim of the GPL license. Don't want to play? Then you aren't part of the community and you can do it yourself.
Your example, by the way, is disingenuous. Counterexample - The developer finds something he wants to use and it's BSD licensed. His company take it, modify it and put it into the firmware of the router they're selling. There's no obligation to open anything so the WAG54G community never happens. Net loss for progress.
byam 2k ( 217885 ) writes:
You're right, but then tell it by its real name: It's not about choice or freedom, it's about building community. Using the GPL means sacrificing the developer's freedom to build a community around a software product.
This is important, since it also gives you a hint about what's needed for building a working GPL product.
For example, take Google Wave: Google threw it out there, published the server source (maybe as GPL, I don't know), documented the protocol, and then did nothing more. Did a community build
bynext_ghost ( 1868792 ) writes:
Your argument is flawed because it reduces the entire world to just one situation. Closing the source forces everybody else to reinvent the wheel. Think for a while about this: In the GPL world, everything needs to be invented and implemented exactly once and anybody can improve what was implemented before. In the closed source world, everybody has to start from scratch and works on his own hook. Even if the total amount of resources in the closed source world is more than thousand times bigger than in the
byhey! ( 33014 ) writes:
I don't see why this point has to keep coming up, because it's quite simple.
BSD maximizes the individual freedom of each immediate recipient of source code under that license. GPL maximizes the minimum net freedom enjoyed by the community of binary recipients as a whole.
Another way of thinking about it is that BSD provides a broader range of possible total freedom among ALL binary recipients than GPL does. They may have more freedom (including making proprietary works) or less freedom (because most recipie
byscharkalvin ( 72228 ) writes:
Each license has different goals. Since it applies few restrictions on how the code can be used, the BSD license is sorta like putting the code into the public domain without giving up ownership of it. The GPL, on the other hand, seeks to keep the original code and any improvements made to it as open source. It also seeks to insure that anybody that gets a product containing the original or modified code can get the source to it without having to go on a wild goose chase. If you use the BSD license you
byNursie ( 632944 ) writes:
Using a dynamic link does not "solve" the issue.
If you are a commercial entity dynamic linking against a GPL library I would advise you to get legal counsel quick-sharp. Legal counsel that has had experience in this area, because you are entering a huge and potentially dangerous grey area.
Not only that but you are expressly contravening the wishes of the person or people that wrote the library and put it under GPL. I would be VERY careful with that approach, and personally would never take it as I consider
byNursie ( 632944 ) writes:
And you might also want to check out the Linux kernel license file which has the following exception -
"NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work"."
Which rather blows your equivalence of library and kernel use out of the water.
byDeadCatX2 ( 950953 ) writes:
taking their effort, profiting from it and not sharing back
When a construction company uses a hammer, does the manufacturer bitch and whine about how that company is profiting from their hammer without sharing back?
I always get the impression that GPL proponents set up a straw man; that somehow letting your code be used in a commercial product is going to "steal" it from you so that no one else can use it.
With BSD, the code is still out there. Anyone is still free to use it. If a commercial developer puts
byNursie ( 632944 ) writes:
"When a construction company uses a hammer, does the manufacturer bitch and whine about how that company is profiting from their hammer without sharing back?"
When a construction company uses a hammer, modifies it slightly and sells it on for a lot of money, still with the patented and trademarked aspects of the original hammer in place.... sure as hell the original manufacturer whines and then sues. What's your point?
bynext_ghost ( 1868792 ) writes:
You're forgetting another key function of the patent system. When the patent expires, there's a good-enough technical description of the invention free for others to copy and develop. Patents not only protect the initial investment, they also ensure that everybody can get access to the invention a little bit later. GPL does the same thing without any delays.
●ath your current threshold.
● your current threshold.
byNursie ( 632944 ) writes:
Sure, the original code is not closed. But the new code, derived from the FOSS contributors code, can be closed. Furthermore people who receive the new binaries don't get the source or the ability to redistribute. Major loss of rights to them.
GPL ensures that everyone in the chain gets the source if they want it. That's the whole damn point.
byDogtanian ( 588974 ) writes:
The GPL vs BSD license argument never gets old for some folk does it?
I agree.
Each to their own, but the GPL allows people who contribute to the public good to make sure that their work is not [etc.]
Yeah, thanks a bunch.
You (rightly) bemoan the tired, repetitive nature of GPL vs. BSD discussions. The ones that regurgitate the exact same argumentative points every time without shedding any new light on them, that let people feel good by justifying the same entrenched positions.
Then you self-indulgently kickstart exactly that type of thread-hijacking discussion because you can't resist sticking your oar in anyway. Despite the fact that what you say is the exact same explanation of the GPL tha
byThinboy00 ( 1190815 ) writes:
The GPL vs BSD license argument never gets old for some folk does it?
YES!!!
We have this stupid argument every *single* time anything involving the GPL happens. Will everyone please drop the sticks and back slowly away from the horse carcass [wikipedia.org]? Nobody cares which license *you* use for *your* project; it's almost as dumb as text-editor wars.
byDogtanian ( 588974 ) writes:
You missed the point that he criticised such discussions then kickstarted one such thread hijack anyway [slashdot.org].
●th your current threshold.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
You're talking about the freedom of different people. The GPL maximizes the freedom of the recipient of derived code. The BSD license maximizes the freedom of the distributor of derived code. In many cases the original programmer is also the recipient of code which was derived from his own work, so he maximizes his own freedom by using the GPL. He can after all dual-license his own work at any time. People who argue against the GPL usually do so because they want to use other people's work without reciproca
byDarkKnightRadick ( 268025 ) writes:
I have no problems with reciprocating when I am so inclined. To be forced to do so is ridiculous.
byDarkKnightRadick ( 268025 ) writes:
And yet, once you do, you've been infected. Anything that interfaces with it must be GPL'd according to the folks over at WordPress. Now I'm not so free anymore, am I.
byEnleth ( 947766 ) writes:
If you do, then surely you must have made an educated, conscious decision and made yourself aware of all the consequences? It's not like the GPLed code is not labeled as such - more often than not it's almost over-labeled, with a full notice in every file. What's the problem, again? Don't like it - don't use it. How could it be any simpler?
byDarkKnightRadick ( 268025 ) writes:
To not use it would mean a return to closed-source software (which I dislike even more, no chance for anyone with the skills to fix it up and make it better) or use no software at all. How is either choice palatable to anyone?
bynext_ghost ( 1868792 ) writes:
So let me get this straight, you hate closed source even more than GPL for the obvious reasons but you also hate GPL because it forbids closing the source and thus protects you from being stuck in a closed source world? O_o
byDarkKnightRadick ( 268025 ) writes:
No, I hate the GPL because it removes the freedom for me to use GPL software in closed-source software or in any way in which I choose, whether or not I reciprocate.
Once I download the software (whether it was distributed freely by the author or I paid for it) I should be able to modify it, license my modifications as I wish, and decide whether or not I want to redistribute the original with my modifications. Yeah, if I sell the original program with my modifications and call it all my own, than that's defi
byDarkKnightRadick ( 268025 ) writes:
Did I ever say that? Nope.
I said I want the choice on whether or not I want to reciprocate. Maybe that's the same to you as saying "I don't want to reciprocate, ever." It's not to me. In one instance I'm saying I just want an option, in the other instance you are saying I shouldn't have that option.
Also, if I didn't want people to use my stuff, why would I bother advocating CopyFree [copyfree.org] policies?
bynext_ghost ( 1868792 ) writes:
Look at the big picture. You take open source code, make some changes and release it as closed source. Congratulations, you've just made a fork which will sooner or later become a stub. The resources you put into it are wasted because they didn't help move the open codebase forward. It will move forward nevertheless but at the cost of additional resources to reimplement your changes. Now imagine that there are thousands of people who do this every day to the same project. Can you see those millions of stub
byDarkKnightRadick ( 268025 ) writes:
Really? Tell that to the BSDs (though they do use a lot of GPL software, they are all slowly removing GPL code from their distributions).
bynext_ghost ( 1868792 ) writes:
Right, the BSDs. You mean those guys who managed to lose 20 years of head start over Linux in just 5 years and who also get the majority of userspace contributions from Linux distro developers? At least they can pat themselves on the back for helping Apple make a whole lot of money. Too bad they won't get anything back.
●ies beneath your current threshold.
byDarkKnightRadick ( 268025 ) writes:
Really? So if I make additions to the program I'm using, but DON'T GPL my additions, and still want to distribute them, how does that work.
According to you I can't distribute my additions.
●neath your current threshold.
byIICV ( 652597 ) writes:
And yet reciprocation forms the basis of all civilization. If we want to form a stable software society, it must be based on reciprocation; otherwise, we will maintain this current state of disjointed, warring software fiefdoms led by dictators indefinitely.
byDarkKnightRadick ( 268025 ) writes:
And yet freedom forms the basis of all civilization. If we want to form a stable software society, it must be based on freedom; otherwise, we will maintain this current state of disjointed, warring software fiefdoms led by dictators indefinitely.
FTFY
byIICV ( 652597 ) writes:
No, it explicitly does not. Freedom is, if anything, the antithesis of civilization.
Who is truly free? The loner who lives out in the wilderness by himself, or the cosmopolitan city dweller?
The loner, of course - he is free to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, restricted only by the requirement that he provide for his own needs. He is unbound by social restrictions, by financial needs, by the necessities of cooperation. Indeed, depending on how he supports himself, he probably even "works" far fewer
●neath your current threshold.
byharlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) writes:
Most of the code I've released as open source as been BSD, because I want every programmer to be able to reasonably use it. BSD accomplishes that. Even GPL projects can use my code if they wish. If I had released under GPL, then pretty much only GPL projects could use it. Even projects using licenses that the FSF says are copyleft free software licenses but that aren't GPL (such as MS-PL) would not be able to use it.
This is why I consider the BSD to be a more free license.
There are some things that I'm tryi
byharlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) writes:
I've released most of my open source under BSD, because I want it to be usable by as many programers as possible. BSD accomplishes this. Even GPL projects can use my code. If I had released under GPL, my code would be limited pretty much to use in other GPL projects. Even projects using non-GPL licenses that are free and copyleft according to the FSF, such as MS-PL, would not be able to use my code.
That is why I consider BSD to be more free than GPL.
I'm trying to convince my employer to release some of our
bycountertrolling ( 1585477 ) writes:
Simple public domain will do...
byhcpxvi ( 773888 ) writes:
Please tell us how one would magically put their code into the public domain without first dying and then waiting a few decades. I think you can just release it with a statement that says something along the lines of "This software is public domain. I, the author, hereby forego any copyright on it." Or you could write it as part of your job while an employee of the United States government. There is a fair amount of numerical software that is public domain for that reason.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byGolddess ( 1361003 ) writes:
Until some corporation comes along and "convinces" a few congresscritters to give it to them instead [slashdot.org].
bywvmarle ( 1070040 ) writes:
Depending on the exact letter of the law, it is not always possible to fully forego your copyright and/or authorship. Have a look at the Creative Commons CC0 [creativecommons.org] license. That is the closest you can get to putting it in the public domain outright. After all in most jurisdictions (and certainly under the Berne Convention) copyright is automatic. You create it, you own the copyright. Getting rid of that copyright may actually be a problem.
byThe_mad_linguist ( 1019680 ) writes:
"This software is public domain. I, the author, hereby forego any copyright on it."
Hah, sucker! Thanks for the software!
bycountertrolling ( 1585477 ) writes:
Then what term can we use to mean "unrestricted in any form"? Plagiarism issues aside for the moment..
byhcpxvi ( 773888 ) writes:
IANAL, but ... My guess would be that public domain is actually quite simple. You forego copyright on your code, thereby placing it in the public domain. And then anyone can do whatever they like with it. I also guess that whoever wrote that pseudo-license on that (unlinked) NASA website had a very shaky understanding of both software licensing and of copyright law and has written something which is self-contradictory. If he wanted to retain some control over the code he should not have placed it in the pub
byjbolden ( 176878 ) writes:
I'm not sure that license is valid at all, and seems to self contradict. I wouldn't use it as an example of anything other than bad lawyering.
byLunix Nutcase ( 1092239 ) writes:
There is no "license" when something is in the public domain. The only way one could enforce such as license would be by holding a copyright or some other sort of IP right to the code, but such a thing doesn't exist for public domain works.
●eneath your current threshold.
●neath your current threshold.
byDarkKnightRadick ( 268025 ) writes:
The website is not mine but I will pass on the information.
●th your current threshold.
byChris Burke ( 6130 ) writes:
I know! Distinguishing between different situations is so hard! It strains my brain cell.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byChris Burke ( 6130 ) writes:
Have a beer. That should take care of that final, pesky cell.
Believe me, there have been many such attempts on its life, and it has survived them all and come out stronger and more resilient. Following the Cliff Clavin Theory of Drinking, this is the most lean, efficient, and bad-ass brain cell in history. It is equal to a hundred normal brain cells. If my brain was a computer simulation, it would be The One.
It's still just one lonely brain cell though. Back to trying to kill it with beer!
byNotBornYesterday ( 1093817 ) writes:
The Chuck Norris of brain cells, as it were. I am in awe.
bybonch ( 38532 ) writes:
They're different situations dealing with the same thing--copyright law. The point is that Slashdot is constantly anti-copyright except in a GPL article, where it suddenly becomes pro-copyright. After all, the GPL is a copyright license, and without copyright law, it has no legal power. Pro-piracy/anti-copyright advocates around here often forget that.
This court victory exists thanks to copyright law.
byChris Burke ( 6130 ) writes:
Slashdot is anti-abuse-of-copyright-law or anti-excessive-draconian-copyright-law.
But thanks for demonstrating that good ol' inability to distinguish in black and white.
●th your current threshold.
● your current threshold.
●your current threshold.
●r 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
●
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●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...