Slashdot Mirror
MIT Media Lab Defaults To Free and Open Source Software (networkworld.com)
Reader alphadogg cites a report on NetworkWorld: MIT Media Lab, that 30-year-old tech innovation factory that has had a huge hand in churning out everything from LEGO MindStorms to the Guitar Hero video game, has now wowed the open source and free software crowd. Lab Director Joi Ito over the weekend revealed that MIT Media Lab has changed its approach to software releases to FLOSS (free/libre/open-source software) by default.
The GPL removes no freedom at all. It only doesn't grant it. That means, if you really want to distribute closed source software based on GPL, you only need the permission of the copyright holders. The GPL does grant freedoms, the only freedoms it doesn't grant is the freedom to remove freedom. This isn't granted by states either (you may not imprison people, but the state can).
I don't say the GPL is perfect, but for huge monolithic software it is a good model.
MIT Media Lab Defaults To Free and Open Source Software
That's not what the article says at all. They've removed the extra approval required to open source projects. They are open sourcing everything by default. It's up to the project whether they release it as proprietary or open source.
Except the GPL doesn't exist in a vacuum - in the absence of the GPL (or some other license), copyright law automatically removes virtually all freedoms except to observe and discuss. No sharing, no modification, not even necessarily the right to use it (running software requires copying it into RAM, a point which has been raised in a few lawsuits, though I don't recall if there's ever been an official ruling on the subject).
The GPL then grants you many freedoms which you would not have had - granting the right to do almost anything with the software *except* put further restrictions on derivative works.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The GPL goes out of its way to remove freedom and choice (like the freedom to modify the code and to distribute binaries without revealing the changes, or the freedom to use a snippet of GPLed code without virally tainting the rest of the code base), while the BSD license tries to maximize it.
Let's start from the default:
- I write code, and you get NOTHING. ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA.
You distribute my code, I can sue you for copyright infringement.
You distribute binaries compiled from my code, I can sue you for copyright infringement.
You distribute binaries that I compiled from my code, I can sue you for copyright infringement.
You redistribute binaries that I compiled from my code and distributed to you, I can sue you for copyright infringement.
Now I get to make a choice.
1. BSD
- You can take my code, and profit from it. Fuck me, fuck the people who receive your binaries, fuck the world. You win.
2. GPL
- You can take my code, and profit from it. You can't fuck me, you can't fuck the people who receive your binaries, you can't fuck the world. We all win.
Well, that's an easy choice. I choose the GPL. ... your alternative is to WRITE IT YOUR GOD-DAMNED SELF, and then, feel free to do whatever you want with what YOU wrote.
If you take my code, you play nice, with me and everybody else.
If you don't like that
Sure, but if you're going to go around braying about just how "free" it is, you should also understand that to some people, GPL is somewhat less than "free". Because it's a restrictive kind of "free".
It's A model of "free", it's not THE model of "free". Even Linux is still GPLv2, precisely because it's a much more restrictive license. You know, kinda less "free".
As you have just inadvertently summed it up, the "freedom" the GPL offers is to use it under a very specific terms, or not use it at all. Which is kinda mostly free, except in the ways in which it isn't.
You're right, people are free to not use it. So, don't be surprised when people don't because they don't want someone else's ideology crammed up their ass.
Having benefited from BSD and Apache licenses, I'd be quite inclined to use those licenses, or at least things like the LPGL so you can link to stuff ... precisely because they don't wish to assert control over how others use it. You know, they're more "free".
Oh, by the way, in quoting my posting you created an unlicensed derivative work, and you owe me twelve trillion dollars. ;-)
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Sure, but if you're going to go around braying about just how "free" it is, you should also understand that to some people, GPL is somewhat less than "free". Because it's a restrictive kind of "free".
Of course I understand. That was the whole point of the GPL. It gives you certain rights, but not the freedom to take the same rights away from others. Sounds like a fair trade to me, but there are plenty of other licenses to choose from if you don't like it.
LOL, yup, that's freedom ... adhere to this long list of restrictions, or don't use it.
Whereas, something like a BSD or Apache license places very few limitations on your 'freedom".
GPL means you are "free" to be enslaved by a certain ideological view of "free", by telling you the ways in which you're not really free.
It has its place, but it's by no means perfect, and it certainly has a restricted definition of "free".
Every time I see this philosophical argument, I shake my head, because the proponents of both licenses tend to completely ignore the viewpoint of the other and get bogged down in the definition of "freedom." BSD is free in the sense of anarchy. Here's our code, do with it what you will. "Fork it? Clone it and close it? Go for it, man, be free." There is a lot of good in this, and some bad. GPL is free in the sense of the picnic pavilion down at the local park. "We have some good rules in place here to make sure that everyone can freely enjoy this today, and in the future." There is a lot of good in this, and some bad.
I tend to come down on the GPL (v2, that is--v3 is a mess) side for "community projects" and the BSD side for pure utility projects. If you have a shared vision for something you really want to build than GPL's "you have to give back" philosophy is wonderful. You need look no further than the current state of Linux to see why. On the other hand, if you really just need a standard for everyone to adhere to so we can all go and get some other work done then BSD type licenses are almost always superior, because there is no problem incorporating them into closed source projects (which is great, because you want all those products to interop in some way).
tl;dr: both are good for some things, and bad for other things. Quit your bitching and pick the right one for your project, and pick the right project for your need.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
You can "use" (as in run) GPL licensed software for any purpose whatsoever. You just can't create proprietary closed source software with extracts of the source code provided to you. That's why the GPL promotes freedom, and the BSD license promotes proprietary software.
GPL does remove freedoms, though.
Take a piece of code under (modified 2 clause - assumed since 3-clause is incompatible) BSD. It gets incorporated under GPL (fine, that's why the authors picked BSD). Now, however, a patch is made to that code, which is GPL'd. That patch cannot be incorporated back into the upstream project because it's GPL'd which conflicts with the original project's BSD license.
It's not a hypothetical - it has happened before. GPL advocates say GPL protects against "code theft" by proprietary licenses "stealing" BSD code, when the GPL does exactly the same thing. Except instead of locking it away in a closed box, the GPL parades it around, proud it has taken BSD code and locked it up as if it was a proprietary license.
That's probably the most insulting part of GPL - the claim BSD allows locking up "with proprietary licenses" when in reality, the GPL does the same. SO yes, the GPL has removed freedoms from the code that was formerly BSD licensed.
GPL does remove freedoms, though.
No, it doesn't. Under copyright law, you literally have no freedom to do anything with the code. The GPL does nothing but grant freedoms.
Copyright law removes freedoms, the GPL grants most of them back.
Take a piece of code under (modified 2 clause - assumed since 3-clause is incompatible) BSD. It gets incorporated under GPL (fine, that's why the authors picked BSD).
ok
Now, however, a patch is made to that code, which is GPL'd.
That's just an example of freedom being removed by copyright law, not the GPL. Under copyright law, upstream has no rights to that authors patch at all.
And actually it's subtler than you've made out. You can't relicense BSD code as GPL without the permisson of the author. You can however aggregate them. If the patch is only against the BSD portion of the code, it's not a derived work of the GPL stuff, and so the patch author could license the patch however they wish.
Copyright law allows them to do so.
That's probably the most insulting part of GPL - the claim BSD allows locking up "with proprietary licenses" when in reality, the GPL does the same.
Except it doesn't because the GPL is not a proprietary license for any normal definition of the word.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The question is: If the BSD license is superior to the GPL, why didn't Open Source really truly take off as a movement with mainstream recognition until after the Linux system and its GPL license?
Linus answered this himself. The BSD on PC projects got tied up in court by AT&T. If it were not for this fluke of history he would not have written Linux. A PC based Unix was such a compelling "want" that whatever project had the first credible implementation would have dominated. Because of AT&T that was Linux. The GPL had nothing to do with it. Linux did not benefit from the GPL, the GPL benefited from Linux.
No, nothing prevents distribution with GPL software. You cannot relicense software that you do not own the rights to (i.e. that you did not write).
I do not know why this needs to be explained, on Slashdot of all places...
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.