Slashdot Mirror
Is GPL Licensing In Decline?
GMGruman writes "Simon Phipps writes, "As Apache licenses proliferate, two warring camps have formed over whether the GPL is or isn't falling out of favor in favor of the Apache License." But as he explores the issues on both sides, he shows how the binary thinking on the issue is misplaced, and that the truth is more nuanced, with Apache License gaining in commercially focused efforts but GPL appearing to increase in software-freedom-oriented efforts. In other words, it depends on the style of open source."
Like it or not, but the fact that GPL is prohibited in many app stores is probably what discourages authors of FLOSS from using it as their license. Some authors may also feel that they don't want to use it even if it works fine for them now since they don't know what will happen in the future, as contributions are accepted from other authors it becomes much harder to change license. It's not 1991 anymore.
I've had recent occasion to talk to a few SAAS providers and other software producers who are employing OSS tech in some of their products and the consensus was the GPL was too constrictive, so their using other schemes. I'm also noticing others around the web sticking to GPL 2.0, and dismissing 3.0. I'm just a messenger, just what I've seen.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
It is just Slashdot doing what it does best on a slow news week, they be trolling. They know those that treat anything RMS says as word of God will get all butthurt when they see this and will go apeshit and hilarious flames will ensue, but really if one thinks logically it is easy to explain.
1.- GPL V3 went too anti-business, with RMS going so far as to target one business specifically, 2.- Businesses and those that are working for them were the ones writing much of the GPL code, 3.-RMS refuses to change a line or compromise, 4.-Everyone votes with their feet by going to a different license.
See how simple that is? Now watch those followers of St iGNUicious have a living shitfit because i dared to point out not only reality, but that freedom works BOTH ways! Hell isn't the whole point of FOSS is "If things don't go the way the majority believe, then fork it" so that no one person can dictate what the majority have to have? Well that is what we are seeing here, RMS went too far and spooked a lot of people with his militant anti-business attitude so they are choosing a different license, that's all. If RMS weren't such a militant he would come to the table with developers and Torvalds and ask "What is wrong with the license? What do I need to change to get you on board?" but we know he'll never do that so instead people choose something else. Looks like FOSS is doing exactly as it always has, routing around damage.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
To restate the obvious:
There are two paradoxical possible twists to an open source license.
1. The user is allowed to use the source as part of a closed source product (which is a kind of freedom)
2. The user is obliged to make derivatives available as source (which ensures the greater freedom of other users/developers) (this is a restriction on the actions of user 1)
Neither one is complete freedom. They are both giving up something - the possible work of the downstream user or the business motivation of the first user.
The GPL's origin is in RMS' desire to be able to modify software that was produced by companies. It takes this to the extreme, basically by prohibiting closed source products based on GPL.
The benefit of this is mostly to developers, and within that, to developers who are independent. Software companies share code / secrets a lot as part of business, but under NDAs. The FSF has as a slogan "you deserve software that is free" but how many users want to exercise the freedom to modify and recompile their software?
More and more, FOSS is produced in a dual stream approach - Redhat/Fedora, Jboss community/pro, other things work this way like Jasper reports etc
The reality of this is that the code that is run in production is not "free" in an active way. When you pay for a supported version of RHEL or whatever you do not generally modify anything very deep inside it and then demand support for your modified version. The fact that you are paying for a supported version is a disincentive to using a modifed version, your own or anyone else's.
Also consider that the Linux kernel is largely developed by people working for IBM, Suse, Redhat, etc.
So while the lone developer wanting to add his improvements to the commercially produced and defective printer driver is a convincing story to argue for the GPL, the reality as it is today is different - it's more like the millions of Linux users who wish their hardware was supported but do not produce a driver for it. And I know they may not have access to the necessary information from the hardware maker, etc. Still, the number of people able and motivated to write OS-level code is small. I know I don't know enough to do it.
Nonetheless, the existence of (mostly) GPL OSes is an amazing thing. The access to knowledge for developers that that provides is awesome. But a lot of the requirements to stay GPL-pure do not sound like freedoms to me- requiring you not to buy certain(most) products, visit certain sites - it's ironic when, in the name of freedom, your freedom to act as you wish must be limited.
This is the fifth story[1] based on a single article by one single shill. If this were mere trolling, I'd be grudgingly impressed. As this is a commercial scheme, I hate the guy with passion.
[1]. counting only those I noticed and remember, so there's probably more.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.