On Being Pro-GPL

just_another_sean writes: Christopher Allan Webber, recently returned from OSCON, shares his thoughts on the GPL and why he dislikes people pitting one type of software license against another. He says, "I am not only pro-copyleft, I am also pro-permissive licensing. The difference between these is tactics: the first tactic is towards guaranteeing user freedom, the second tactic is toward pushing adoption. I am generally pro-freedom, but sometimes pushing adoption is important, especially if you're pushing standards and the like. But let's step back for a moment. One thing that's true is that over the last many years we've seen an explosion of free and open source software... at the same time that computers have become more locked down than ever before! How can this be?

And notice... the rise of the arguments for permissive/lax licensing have grown simultaneously with this trend. ...The fastest way to develop software which locks down users for maximum monetary extraction is to use free software as a base. And this is where the anti-copyleft argument comes in, because copyleft may effectively force an entity to give back at this stage... and they might not want to. ... Copyleft's strings say, 'you can use my stuff, as long as you give back what you make from it.' But the proprietary differentiation strategy's strings say, 'I will use your stuff, and then add terms which forbid you to ever share or modify the things I build on top of it.' Don't be fooled: both attach strings. But which strings are worse?"

Comments

Re:Why pro-this or pro-that?

[Kjella]

Let the person writing the code decide how she or he wants to license it. Why all the angst and false drama?

Because the point of open source is having code shared with you by other developers. You own the code, you don't need a license. It's everybody else who has an interest in what license you pick. Those who favor copyleft want more GPL code so it'll snowball while others want to use is in proprietary products. How useful open source is to you is directly proportional to how many developers are using a license aligned with your interests. Why do you think RMS spends all his time promoting the GPL? Why did Apple pick a BSD kernel? It's all about the license, it matters to them what you pick. That's why.

Re:wrong wrong wrong about copyleft

[Bacon Bits]

The fundamental misunderstanding people have is that the GPL is a distribution license, not a use license. That's why it's called a "copyleft" and not an "end user freedom agreement." The GPL is exactly not an end user license agreement. There are no terms of use for GPL software, and the OSI's definition of Open Source explicitly prohibits that.

Technically, all those GPL Windows programs that make you click "I agree with these terms" during install for the GPL are wrong to do so. The GPL requires that the user be notified of his or her rights and obligations with the GPL, but users are not required to accept the terms of the GPL because the GPL only applies to persons distributing the software. The installers should require no agreement checkbox, and the button should say "Next" and never "I Agree".

You can do whatever the hell you want with GPL software -- or, indeed, any OSI approved license, AFAIK -- and if you don't try to give it to a third party you don't have to publish squat. It's perfectly legal to have proprietary modifications to GPL code. You just can't distribute that software to anybody else without giving them the ability to get your code modifications.

This is how Google is able to run a custom version of MySQL for their search engine and they don't have to show the code to anybody. They don't have to do that because they're not distributing Google Custom MySQL to anybody in any form.