
I Love the GPL (Except When it Applies to Me) - blasdel
http://teddziuba.com/2010/01/i-love-the-gpl-except-when-it.html
======
blasdel
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.

~~~
tptacek
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.

~~~
tentonova
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).

~~~
tptacek
Commercial license: not only do you not have the right to use my software
without accepting my terms, but you will pay me, probably per-core. That's
strictly worse than AGPL.

You and I may be arguing at cross-purposes. You seem to care a lot about the
hardships licenses create for software _users_. I couldn't care less. I think
it's an inherently benevolent thing for a software author to give away her
code for free, and if she wants to do that under a strict copyleft... her
code, _her terms_.

The objective of the AGPL is reasonable. "Don't use my code in closed-source
applications". As a developer, that term has been annoying on many occasions (
_shudder_ readline), but it has never seemed unfair.

~~~
tentonova
I'm surprised at the appeals to emotion engendered in your word choices --
"fairness" and "benevolence".

I don't think either applies. The GPL is primarily useful as a means to
maintain a very specific business model that relies on selling commercial
licenses. There's nothing moralistic or benevolent or "fair" about it -- it's
simply business.

The only moral argument I could possibly make is that it's disingenuous if not
outright hypocritical to claim that the GPL is about "freedom" when its used
as merely a business tool that leverages the closed-source work of others to
fund ongoing development.

~~~
tptacek
I agree that the GPL is primarily useful as a vehicle for making money off
software that is also released as open source. Since open source commercial
software is strictly better than closed source commercial software, I don't
have a hard time using words like "benevolent" to describe that practice.

Remember, people can still compete with GPL/AGPL software. They just have to
do it with open source code.

Finally, your third graf is profoundly disingenuous. Most GPL software is
noncommercial. Everything we use to post on HN is traceable in some way back
to GCC, which isn't making money for anyone.

~~~
tentonova
_I agree that the GPL is primarily useful as a vehicle for making money off
software that is also released as open source. Since open source commercial
software is strictly better than closed source commercial software, I don't
have a hard time using words like "benevolent" to describe that practice_

I'm not sure I understand your use of "strictly better" here. If my goal is to
solve a specific problem, then isn't the software that solves that problem the
best strictly better software?

As far as benevolence, why ascribe primarily altruistic motives to clear
business decisions? MySQL's use of the GPL allowed for pervasive adoption,
which increased demand for commercial licensing and support services.

 _Finally, your third graf is profoundly disingenuous. Most GPL software is
noncommercial. Everything we use to post on HN is traceable in some way back
to GCC, which isn't making money for anyone._

How do you think GCC development is paid for? Just take a look at the (closed
source, proprietary, et al) companies providing the primary funding ongoing
GCC development (although many are moving to or looking at LLVM, since its
licensing provides a better model for this sort of shared OSS funding).

It _always_ comes down to money and either commercial interests or government
funding.

~~~
tptacek
I think you and I are wasting time. You care about making things easier for
software users. Software users don't make more software; software authors do.
I care about the interests of developers to the exclusion of almost everything
else, and I'm also simply not religious about the tools they use to accomplish
those aims.

The business benefits of the GPL are so compelling that I don't think they
need my cheerleading. If I write 50,000 lines of C code, and you want to stick
that code in your $10,000 software package and not pay me a dime, the GPL (for
the most part) keeps you from doing that. Total win.

~~~
tentonova
_I think you and I are wasting time. You care about making things easier for
software users. Software users don't make more software; software authors do._

Actually, I think "users" should pay for software as that's all they're able
to contribute, and I don't think that the GPL dual-licensing model users by
some enterprise vendors can actually work for most consumer software.

If I produce developer-oriented software that's outside of our core business
-- but perhaps enables our core business -- I am very likely to release it
under the MIT/BSD license to help aid in wide adoption and external
contribution from funding business interests.

If I produce software that _is_ our core business, then I won't MIT/BSD
license it. I _might_ GPL it, but only if there's a clear value (ie,
leveraging the 'open source' name, aiding in widespread adoption by hobbyists
while targeting enterprise users, etc) in doing so.

 _The business benefits of the GPL are so compelling that I don't think they
need my cheerleading._

The benefits are only compelling for --some-- business models. And this
doesn't disprove the author's point.

As for other business models, especially around commoditized software, the BSD
license often provides the most compelling business benefits as corporates are
free to pool resources on code they are free to link against without having to
release the entirety of their products under a copyleft license.

------
mark_l_watson
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
"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

------
jacoblyles
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.

~~~
tentonova
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.

------
tptacek
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.

~~~
tentonova
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).

~~~
tptacek
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.

~~~
tentonova
_Yes, the BSD license sure is better for software users._

It's also better for software contributors who want to leverage the code in
their own products, and use the resulting revenue to contribute back their
changes (but not their entire product).

 _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._

Some people will free-load. Many won't. Look at the Apache project, where a
vast majority of development is funded by corporations using the software in
their closed source products while contributing improvements back to the
original product.

 _In my industry, the GPL has done a servicable job protecting some key
software projects (Snort, Nessus, Wireshark)._

How do you define "protecting", and what evidence would you use to demonstrate
that protection? What would you say those projects were protected from?

~~~
tptacek
In the case of Snort, that would be protection from 5-10 VC-funded commercial
companies releasing products that compete with Sourcefire's product, the core
of which (in fact, the entire v1.0 of which) is simply Snort. Does that sound
fair to you? That someone would collect $5MM to build a 30 person engineering
team that gets to start picking off customers in 3 months by repackaging your
code? It doesn't sound fair to me at all.

~~~
tentonova
As I said below, I'm surprised by the emotional arguments engendered in your
word choices -- "fairness", "benevolence", etc.

This is simply business, not ideology. In terms of ideology, I think there's a
simply check for whether Sourcefire meets the criteria of "I love the GPL.
Except when it applies to me": Sourcefire could not ever include anyone else's
GPL code in their own product without breaking their business model.

~~~
tptacek
And? So what? Sourcefire isn't scavenging Github for code to stick on their
boxes; they're writing code, and then (for the most part) publishing it to the
world.

From my vantage point, it's the people who produce interesting and valuable
code whose interests should come first. Companies who reallllly want to use
that code in their for-profit endeavors can buy a license or build their own
replacement or open their code; I don't care.

~~~
tentonova
I'm not sure what your point is, or how it counters the author's original
point, which is that what's good for the goose is very much not good for the
gander.

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

~~~
j_baker
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).

~~~
blasdel
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.

~~~
dagw
Not just source contribution, but also the contribution of new GPL
applications. I've written a couple of apps which are licensed under the GPL,
not because I necessarily thought it was the best license for me, but simply
because I wanted to use a GPL library. Had the library I wanted to use been
some other license, my app might have been some other license. But it wasn't
and now there is one more GPL app.

Of course there is the other side of the coin where I haven't used a library I
really wanted to use because I couldn't GPL my app.

------
freetard
> 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.

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

~~~
nothingHappens
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.

~~~
callahad
Both Blackduck and Gartner Group are pushing a doomsday scenario of GPLv3 and
the AGPL seeing surging use, respectively.

The patent / IP language in the GPLv3 still scares a lot of larger companies,
my employer included. It's in Blackduck's commercial interest to present
information in a way that exaggerates the prominence of that family of
licenses. Thus, the chart is of the number of projects released under that
license, and does not take into account the maturity or market penetration of
a project. For instance, a new entry on Sourceforge with nothing but a README
in its repo would be included in Blackduck's count.

That's not to say Blackduck itself is all bad, mind you. I've sat through a
few Continuing Legal Education webinars that they've hosted, and they've all
been quite objective and accurate. In each case, they brought in fairly
prominent figures from the Open Source law space (Karen Copenhaver, Mark
Radcliffe, etc) for the sessions.

------
blur
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.

