I Love the GPL (Except When it Applies to Me)

http://teddziuba.com/2010/01/i-love-the-gpl-except-when-it.html

by blasdel • 17 years ago

29 45 17 years ago

dschobel• 17 years ago

I can't tell whether the angry/swearing diatribe tone is a dramatic effect or just lack of creativity/intelligence on behalf of the author.

macmac• 17 years ago

And his assertion about license proliferation is certainly not correct ref http://www.blackducksoftware.com/oss/licenses#top20

nothingHappens• 17 years ago

Except, is that chart of how many projects use each license, or how much much use software with those licenses sees? Those could be very different. But ups for commenting on the substance rather than the style.

mark_l_watson2• 17 years ago

That is interesting, thanks. I did not realize how few projects use the AGPL.

One problem with the AGPL is that it seems to work for projects that are totally owned by one individual or company because there is a clear stratgey for supporting alternative commercial use licenses with no software distribution requirements. If alternative use licenses are low cost for received value and if the commercial license passes corporate lawyer scrutiny, all is good.

The big problem with the AGPL is projects with multiple contributers - makes a paid for commercial license difficult.

jacoblyles• 17 years ago

I don't get his point. Does he think copyleft is a good ideal failed by the specific personalities of the current maintainers, or a flawed dream unable to survive in the reality of the economic marketplace? The essay feels unfocused and disorganized.

Now, I'm an open-minded child of the modern age and I don't agree with the oppressive old-fashioned idea that every essay must have a point. And truthfully this piece does bring up some interesting food for thought (the SaaS loophole). But it is nothing we haven't heard before, with less juvenile tone.

tentonova12• 17 years ago

My reading was that he was presenting the GPL as an inherently flawed dream unable to survive in the reality of the economic marketplace. In succeeding in market adoption, the proliferation of the GPL actually leads to its own failure due to its knocking the legs out of most of the higher-margin business models required to fund the R&D necessary to produce software.

That might also be my own bias showing.

jmillikin2• 17 years ago

Anybody who believes the GPL was invented to coerce users into sending patches ought to have their head examined.

j_baker• 17 years ago

I might not agree with the GPL, but I'm pretty sure that the intent behind it is to encourage people to contribute back to the open source community (even if not by directly sending patches).

Herring• 17 years ago

No. Look, it's right there in the preamble. First two sentences...

blasdel4• 17 years ago

The intent is to require source contribution downstream.

Any encouraging of upstream communication comes from the difficulty of keeping up with a fork and the knowledge that most code is a liability not an asset. The GPL only pushes you that way indirectly.

tentonova12• 17 years ago

The GPL was invented to leverage network effects to win in the market place, ensuring an exceptionally high entry barrier to non-GPL market entrants (a natural monopoly) should the GPL be successful in this goal.

It hasn't won in the market place -- and it won't -- primarily due to the fact that the coupling between funding and licensing is so indirect -- it's very difficult to earn a high margin on writing GPL licensed code, and most revenue models require an indirect and complex approach to earning money from the software without charging directly for the software itself.

(Yes, you can charge for GPL software. No, that's not a sustainable business model. No, RedHat is not a counter-example. RedHat charges for support and their trademarks, not the software itself, and in doing so appeals to a very specific niche enterprise market.)

tptacek11• 17 years ago

Not a sustainable business model according to who?

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=211736

Red Hat is a cop-out example. Why not talk about SourceFire, Sleepycat, Splunk, Hyperic, Zimbra, and Astaro? These are all companies that sell software, GPL their code, and are (or were, before lucrative aquisition) extremely successful. SourceFire IPO'd off their GPL package; the company's name comes from the fact that they're open source.

blasdel4• 17 years ago

I'm constantly struck by just how much of a turd the AGPL is -- it's a baldfaced EULA! It takes a huge leap beyond what is enforceable via straightforward copyright law and wallows right into the deep end of clickwrap licenses (the GPLv3 bullshit at least still hinges upon distribution).

With all other FOSS licenses, it's lazy bullshit to use them in the LICENSE field of your installer maker -- I absolutely do not have to accept the terms of the GPL to use your software, it's right there in the text of the license, so don't you dare make me click an 'I accept' checkbox.

With the AGPL it's absolutely necessary to do this, because I don't actually have The freedom to run the program, for any purpose

The RMS of twenty years ago would have never approved of such a thing, that he has lent it the imprimatur of the FSF now is testament to his intellectual bankruptcy.

The AGPL will never ever succeed. It will only ever be used by egotistical idiots and dying companies that wish to sear a scarlet letter into their code -- noone but I may profit directly from this work -- as you still retain copyright by default. Is the AGPL transitive across the network the way the GPL is by linking? It seems to me like either answer would show how poorly considered it is as a license.

jmillikin2• 17 years ago

  The RMS of twenty years ago would have never approved of such a thing, that he has lent it the imprimatur of the FSF now is testament to his intellectual bankruptcy.

I doubt he approves now. I've not been able to find a single essay or even email from him regarding the AGPL, which is interesting considering his standard evangelism regarding other licenses. And he regards SaaS as non-free, regardless of whether the source is available.

  Is the AGPL transitive across the network the way the GPL is by linking?

There's no legal precedent (that I know of) for the GPL being transitive across dynamic linking, and if it is, that opens a number of legal problems when linking with Free implementations of proprietary APIs. Static linking is, of course, still covered under standard copyright.

From my non-lawyer reading of the AGPL, it does transit between processes and systems because it covers the output of the application.

blasdel4• 17 years ago

his public silence is odd -- but given that the GPLv3 contains a clause explicitly granting an exemption for use with the AGPL, and the degree to which the FSF is essentially an extension of his person, he must approve in some sense.

tptacek11• 17 years ago

I don't understand the ferocity of your opinion about the AGPL. Its objectives are reasonable: "don't use my software as part of a closed-source commercial web app".

Virtually every piece of commercial closed-source software is distributed under terms that are strictly more restrictive than the AGPL, and the AGPL's objectives are --- unlike those of commercial vendors --- benevolent.

Finally, licenses aren't in competition. They're just tools. You use the one that supports your objectives.

tentonova12• 17 years ago

I'm not sure how I understand how a commercial license is "strictly more restrictive" than the AGPL, which requires that you also release your code under the AGPL. Whether or not it's "strictly more restrictive" rather depends on whether you want to also release all the source to your own code as well.

I also don't understand how the AGPL's objectives are "benevolent" when the primary purpose of those objectives as applied by commercial interests is to ensure a revenue stream via commercial license.

You yourself said: "GPL-style licenses make it harder for competing companies to use your code. GPL is therefore an easier sell inside of a company."

How is that benevolent? (charitable, intending or showing kindness).

adulau2• 17 years ago

While making a diff of the AGPL version 3 and GPL version 3, I can't see the point where you are not allowed to run the program. Can you point us to the respective part of the text assuming that fact?

Another important point, the AGPL or GPL license is applicable (not at the execution) only when you are distributing (conveying) the software. The AGPL is just an extension of the distribution nothing to do with the execution of the software.

diff -u gpl-3.0.txt agpl-3.0.txt

    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
    -    GNU General Public License for more details.
    +    GNU Affero General Public License for more details.

    -    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
    +    You should have received a copy of the GNU Affero General Public License
     along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

    Also add information on how to contact you by    electronic and paper mail.

    -  If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short
    -notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:
    -
    -    <program>  Copyright (C) <year>  <name of author>
    -    This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
    -    This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
    -    under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
    -
    -The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
    -parts of the General Public License.  Of course, your program's commands
    -might be different; for a GUI interface, you would use an "about box".
    +  If your software can interact with users remotely through a computer
    +network, you should also make sure that it provides a way for users to
    +get its source.  For example, if your program is a web application, its
    +interface could display a "Source" link that leads users to an archive
    +of the code.  There are many ways you could offer source, and different
    +solutions will be better for different programs; see section 13 for the
    +specific requirements.

    You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school,
 if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if necessary.
    -For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU GPL, see
    +For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU AGPL, see
 <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
    -
    -  The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
    -into proprietary programs.  If your program is a subroutine library, you
    -may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with
    -the library.  If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
    -Public License instead of this License.  But first, please read
    -<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>.

blasdel4• 17 years ago

Clever of you to use diff!

The AGPL is only an extension of the distribution constraints as far as the strings embedded in the program are covered by copyright. It can't use distribution as an enforcement boundary for the code, which never gets sent to the user.

The AGPL has everything to do with the execution of the software. That is its entire purpose! I am not allowed to run the software unless all parties providing it input can get its source, with an advertising clause. Anyone bound by the license does not have Freedom Zero.

mark_l_watson2• 17 years ago

I don't agree with the trash talk on the AGPL in these comments to the original article. I would like to see fewer open source licenses: in my opinion the Apache 2, LGPL 3, and AGPL 3 would suffice since I am not that clear why Apache 2 and BSD styles licensed projects just couldn't be Apache 2. That said: creators should obviously have the only say in what license they choose to use.

I know someone who has a small AI + semantic web company, they use the AGPL, and I think that they are doing OK. The trick is selling a "commercial use" exception.

Also, my understanding is that if you use AGPL code in a web service, then you need to make the entire web service implementation AGPL. However, other systems that use the newly created AGPL web service do not need to be AGPL - if I am wrong about this, I would appreciate being corrected.

tedunangst• 17 years ago

"I am not that clear why Apache 2 and BSD styles licensed projects just couldn't be Apache 2."

    $ wc -w isc apache
    192 isc
    1395 apache

freetard• 17 years ago

> Free Software: I found a loophole in my student loan documentation that lets me defer payments for decades, so long as I stay in the Ph.D. program!

I'm sure Stallman and the like who have given their whole life to free software will appreciate. Meanwhile, this guy hasn't done much and yet not only complains about free software while using them but also calls them lazy at the same time. Shameless.

tptacek11• 17 years ago

I have no idea what his point is, but from a software business perspective, the difference between BSD-style and GPL-style is simple: GPL-style licenses make it harder for competing companies to use your code. GPL is therefore an easier sell inside of a company, because it gives the software owner special rights over the code.

tentonova12• 17 years ago

In contrast, as a company looking to use and contribute to open-source software, BSD licensed code is an easier sell because you aren't locked to purchasing a commercial non-OSS license from the copyright holders (see: Oracle/Sun/Monty regarding MySQL).

tptacek11• 17 years ago

Yes, the BSD license sure is better for software users. You can lift a BSD package wholesale into a new white-label product, and you don't even have to tell the author! That sure is convenient.

You use the BSD license when you don't care about the commercial value of your code. But, for the most part, I think using the BSD license means you're not going to care about the commercial value of your code, because if it's valuable, people will freeload.

In my industry, the GPL has done a servicable job protecting some key software projects (Snort, Nessus, Wireshark). The counterexamples (notably Metasploit) are utterly dependent on the continued effort of the original authors --- Metasploit goes stale faster than almost any other security tool.

blur• 17 years ago

Comments like the ones on this article are why younger devs are avoiding the free software movement (notice I said movement and not free software itself). Instead of honestly addressing the shortcomings of the GPL you get all defensive and huffy, like a 10 year old who's been told his skateboard sucks.

I Love the GPL (Except When it Applies to Me)

Related Stories