
Why the use of GPL is declining - macco
http://dirkriehle.com/2013/04/13/a-dual-model-of-open-source-license-growth/
======
JohnTHaller
MIT and BSD are great for takers who like to take from open source and give
nothing back since they are free to take the code, modify it, and release it
as commercial closed source software (which is usually what happens). There
are rare exceptions to this where people enhance and contribute back.
Companies love MIT/BSD since they don't have to give back to their
competitors.

The GPL is great as it ensures that everyone who uses my code has to give
their contributions back so I get to use and improve upon it, too. Individuals
usually like this. Companies often do not.

The way I look at it, I'm doing work for free. The GPL ensures I get a return
on that investment in the form of additional code and work that I can use in
my own projects and that everyone can benefit from. MIT/BSD lets someone else
profit from my work without giving anything back to anyone.

~~~
Sanddancer
So why is it that Apple, Google, etc are contributing a lot of code back to
llvm/clang when they don't have to? Why is it that no one's created a long-
lasting fork of xfree86/xorg, even though those are also under permissive
licenses? Why is it that there are many commercial consulting companies for
PostgreSQL that donate everything they write back to the community?
Conversely, why is it that MySQL under Oracle, while GPLed, is criticized for
not being open and contributing meaningful information about the project?

~~~
GhotiFish
because working publicly on software is the right way to make software. Try
explaining that to a middle aged balding manager who just wants to get through
the next quarter without getting canned. You can make an easier case to use
permissive software, and once you're using it you can make an easier case to
submit public work.

To me, that says we need more pressure, not less.

~~~
Sanddancer
I'd argue that history shows otherwise. GPLv3, with its increased
restrictions, proved a bridge too far for a lot of projects, to the detriment
of everyone. Apple, the FreeBSD project, the OpenBSD project, etc have all put
in efforts to divest themselves of GPL encumbered code because it increased
the costs of using the software. Because the wording of things like the patent
clauses were so questionable, it became much cheaper in terms of lawyer time,
etc, to either use older software that was still under GPLv2, or to use
software using less-encumbered licenses, like BSD and MIT.

That balding middle manager needs to make sure that that license is acceptable
by his boss, by the people in the legal department, etc. For example, an
innocuous throwaway line of a program that can only be used for "good, not
evil," ends up needing to get the lawyers involved for clarification and
special waivers ( <http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions>
). If the internal costs of using an encumbered program are too great, then
chances are, it just won't get used; the company will either write their own
version, or use a commmercial variant.

~~~
GhotiFish
That's well argued. Truth be told IANAL, I know the GPL has being patched to
avoid people shirking it's intention. If it became a bit of a monster because
of that, I would not be aware.

------
CJefferson
For me, the thing which killed the GPL was the GPL v3.

Not the contraversy which surrounded it, but the fact that GPL v2 is
incompatable with GPL v3, and the suggested fix was "make your licence GPL v2+
and trust us for all time to never make a licence you disagree with". I am
aware of several projects which will probably never get off GPL v2, and now
can't merge in GPL v3-only code (as while the FSF seem to encourage people to
make the code forward-licence compatible, they don't seem to encourage
backward-licence compatability).

For me (and several minor projects I work on), that was the point at which we
just threw our hands in the air -- we didn't have the time or motivation to
pick our way out of this situation.

~~~
GhotiFish
Now _that_ is a valid criticism.

The FSF drives a hard line sometimes, frankly I think more ire should be
directed at TiVo than FSF. The uppity jerks.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The FSF drives a hard line sometimes, frankly I think more ire should be
> directed at TiVo than FSF.

In the first place, IMO, "Tivoization" is an overblown problem ; in the second
place, I think the anti-tivoization (and, insofar as they limit the use cases
of Free Software, anti-software freedom) provisions of the GPLv3 have done
more to prevent GPL usage than to prevent tivoization.

I think it dramatically highlighted the problem with the GPL approach: that,
now that the value of open source software is demonstrated, while some people
_will_ take and not give back with the opportunity, lots will, and you end up
getting more growth of usable F/OSS software if you don't burden the people
downstream, and if you try to use compulsion, you get locked in a cycle of
increasing the complications and restrictions for downstream users in a way
that just gets more people to throw up their hands and not bother with your
code at all. While the bad actors find new and creative ways of complying with
your most recent license while subverting its intent, leading to yet more
complicated licenses, with more burdens, etc.

~~~
johnbm
The funny thing is, in a way, Stallman and Apple agree: users should be able
to modify and enjoy their devices any way they like. For the hackers, that
means root access. For normal users, that means being able to install apps
without worrying about security and privacy. The Stallman model drives the
internet's infrastructure, but the Apple model now drives consumer computing.
We can argue about the particular provisions (I do prefer Android), but apps
work.

I think the GPL was a legal solution to a social problem: companies were
hoarding software and trying to patent it. But software patents are still
illegal in most of the world, and the best way to ensure software cannot be
patented is to publish it under a permissive license, and demonstrate prior
art. Regardless of intent, licensing something under GPL is a kiss of death in
certain cases, so it acts a bit like a patent anyway: it scares away
commercial competitors.

Tivoization is also interesting, because we sort of have a modern day Tivo:
Netflix. It's so convenient and affordable, people don't care how the video is
being delivered. Instead of Tivo hacking, there's the Netflix API.
(<http://developer.netflix.com>)

The fact is, software- and content-as-a-service have largely made the GPLv3
irrelevant, because the goals it's meant to enable, i.e. freedom and
accessibility of software, have been realized in different ways. Society at
large simply does not care about a Grand GPL future. It does care about
privacy, and being able to export their data from the services they sign up
for.

------
blackhole
You know, if I make something open-source, it's because I _want_ people to use
it. I refuse to use copyleft licenses because all they manage to do in
practice is ensure no commercial venture will ever use your code. If I didn't
want a commercial entity using my code, I wouldn't make it open-source.

The GPL was created to help _free software_ , which is more about freedom of
speech, not open-source. It should be used only when your code is intended as
a contribution to the free software movement, not when it is intended to
simply be open-source.

~~~
bitdiddle
right, like for example Git. No one has built any commercial ventures around
Git that I know of.

~~~
profquail
Are those commercial ventures linking their code with the Git binary? Or are
they just building tools which wrap the command-line Git tool?

I'm inclined to think that most (if not all) commercial offerings are going to
use the second option, because there won't be much difference to the end-user
and it means the company won't have to open-source their code. If Git was
permissively-licensed, perhaps those companies would choose to link with the
binary (or incorporate the code directly into their products) and contribute
patches and bug-fixes back to the project.

~~~
bitdiddle
perhaps, I think it's some what of a myth that one can't make money from free
software. Sure one can't erect flimsy toll booths and extract rents but as I
look around I see lots of companies, .eg. IBM profiting quite nicely from free
software.

------
tzs
When I find BSD or MIT licensed code, I feel like a kid whose grandmother has
given him money for his birthday, so he can spend it on what he wants.

When I find GPL licensed code, I feel like a kid whose grandmother has given
him underpants for his birthday.

~~~
eksith
This is exactly my feeling! A lot of my "playground stuff" is in the Public
Domain for this very reason; I hate giving underpants as gifts cause that is
_such_ a bummer (and you don't even find out a lot of times until you download
the bloody thing), I can't even explain just how bad it feels without coffee
first.

The non-playground stuff is MIT (something I did for work) or ISC, which is
mostly harmless to anyone who wants to actually _use_ it. People who use GPL
are too hung up on controlling the distribution mode of derivatives; I
understand the reason GPL exists, but I think it's a faulty premise to begin
with.

Kinda like Peace Through Superior Fire Power.

Also, the preamble to the GPL reads a lot like religious/political rhetoric.

~~~
stelonix
Would you care to elaborate why you think GPL's premise is false?

And I believe you're right, the GPL is (and was designed to be) a political
statement.

~~~
eksith
I started writing a reply and then I just remembered I wrote about how I felt
about it a little while back.

<http://eksith.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/gpl-vs-bsd/>

On three separate occasions so far, I've come across a situation where someone
has rejected a GPL piece (with basically nothing wrong technically; which is a
damn shame) only to go with BSD the first time, ISC the second and, to my
surprise, a closed source solution the third. Now 3 may not seem like a
statistically significant number, but from the type of projects these were, my
feeling is that the GPL seems to actively repel adoption to the point where
even a closed source binary is more preferable.

The premise is to ensure quality code gets returned to the community, and I
understand that, but quality code isn't what we usually get back. When the
issue is forced, by and large, I feel people reject participation entirely,
return the bare minimum necessary to comply (let's say an API which is GPL
licensed while the rest of the library/application is under a different one)
or, of course, non-compliance.

It's hard not to be a cynic these days, but I do think most people are
basically good. And if you give good people the choice of doing good, they
will not only do it, but also do it more earnestly. This earnestness in turn
will produce, I believe, code of the best quality.

------
stcredzero
GPL restricts my freedom in an effort to protect it. BSD and MIT and other
licenses like them carry no such restriction.

~~~
GhotiFish
wow. I honestly thought that when I heard that argument on 4chan, that the
people on the other end making that argument were aware how crazy their line
of thinking was. This was the last place I expected to see that sentiment
reiterated.

You live in a society of laws, that guarantees your freedom. BSD and MIT do
not guarantee your freedom. They are free in a purely anarchist sense. This is
not a good thing™.

~~~
wslh
What stcredzero says is logically right: it restricts the freedom for
contributing and licensing your own work in the next hop.

I am not saying that GPL is bad, I am arguing that in complex scenarios this
is not the right choice.

~~~
GhotiFish
I don't know if the situation is really that complex. The GPL and it's code
base exist to push the world towards the correct state of being.

That feeling of wanting to use a GPL library, but not being able to open
source your code feels awful, I know, but that feeling is there to get you to
ask "Why cant I open source my code?" not "Why is the GPL restricting me?"

~~~
profquail
I've released all of my open-source code -- with the exception of one project
(LGPL, because it was a direct port of another LGPL'd library) -- under
permissive licenses like Apache 2.0 or modified BSD.

What I really dislike about that feeling you describe is when I think of a
good project I'd like to build, but which would require the use of a GPL'd
library -- therefore requiring me to license my code under the GPL. Every time
that's come up, I've just opted not to create the project; in my mind, I just
can't justify writing open-source code that's "free" instead of free.

------
doe88
Nowadays in the wide I mainly see two use cases for GPL code, either the
person want to limit its use to encourage purchase of a commercial license or
to prevent its use by a conccurrent, or the second use I see is people wanting
to make a political statement of some sort.

I respect both use cases but ultimately I consider GPL code more like teasing
to me, because as great as this code is, I know there is some limitations with
this code and I won't be able to use it as freely as I'd want now or in the
future.

So now, to spare me the mental pain of knowing there is a great GPL project I
know I can't use, the first thing I do when I discover a new project is to
check its license and if it's GPL I stop reading, plain and simple. I highly
respect people releasing GPL code, I highly respect their motivations and
somehow their political engagement but I treat it like if this code didn't
exist or is a binary.

And for my own code I use the MIT License when I choose to share it with the
world.

------
Sami_Lehtinen
I decided to use MIT license, because it's permissive and simple enough.

~~~
jakerocheleau
Most of the work I release is licensed using MIT because it allows other
developers to build with my code without limitations or requiring full
attribution. I like the idea of anybody having direct access to change or
update what I've written to make it better, faster, cleaner.

Until I can find a more "free" license I will stick to MIT as well.

~~~
wereHamster
<http://unlicense.org/>, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL>

~~~
kelnos
Please don't. Licenses like MIT, BSD 2-clause, etc. are all well-understood by
people in the legal profession at this point, while these really add nothing
to the table. There's no need for the proliferation of open source licenses.

------
sumanthvepa
Although there may be altruistic or political reasons for preferring
MIT/BSD/Apache style licenses over the GPL, I believe that the choice of
license must be closely related to the type of project you are creating. If
the project is a library or a piece of code that is intended for use by other
developers, you will greatly increase the potential audience for your project
by using a license like the MIT/BSD or Apache license.

If however, your project is a complete application (say a code editor,
browser, or a game), whose primary audience consists of non-developers, then a
GPL can be a good license, as it maximizes reach to your intended audience,
while still allowing developers to contribute the project, and most
importantly preventing free-riding by potential competitors.

------
snarfy
Sometimes I don't care about rights. I care about results.

Considering market size, # of active developers, and general amount of funding
(corporate or otherwise), which is the best/most advanced, a major Linux
distro or FreeBSD?

The answer to this question will tell you which license has better results.

~~~
profquail
> The answer to this question will tell you which license has better results.

Correlation does not imply causation.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)

------
rlx0x
I don't expect anyone here arguing for the GPL (in an predominately
neoconservative community like hacker news). So anyways, I make the conscious
decision to use GPL, because it protects my work from exploitation by others
(corporations are people too my friend, right?)

~~~
sramsay
I am absolutely amazed by the reactions in this thread. I don't know if HN
readers are bunch of neo-cons (I'm certainly not), but I wonder if people feel
threatened by the GPL, because they are current or aspirational entrepreneurs
who think the GPL gets in the way of their making a lot of money.

~~~
profquail
I don't think HN readers in general are neoconservative, mostly quite the
opposite.

I do, however, think many HN readers have a strong libertarian streak. In this
case, when I say "libertarian", I mean true libertarianism (not the "tea
party"-ish faction of the Republican party).

In this respect, I imagine most HN'ers prefer the BSD/MIT/Apache 2.0 licenses
not because they want to make money off of free software in the future, but
because they value personal freedom and extend those beliefs to their own
software development. In other words, they want to use free/open software to
avoid being trampled on by some company, but they're also not OK with being
pushed around by any other "free" software developers.

Read a bit of this article and you'll see what I mean:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism>

~~~
sramsay
"when I say 'libertarian,' I mean true libertarianism . . ."

Talking about "true libertarianism" is no different than talking about "true
conservatism," "true feminism," "true Marxism" or anything else -- these terms
are all historically fluid, and accusing one another of not being "true" is
one of the main activities among communities who unite under the supposed
unity of an ideological stance.

Richard Stallman, it should be noted, has also been called a libertarian
(<http://actonline.org/act-blog/archives/1147>).

But yes, you're probably right in the main about their not liking to be pushed
around by others. Still, that describes a vast cross-section of human society.

------
stcredzero
Another way to think of this: It's alright if you've brought the toys, and you
feel the rules to play should be a certain way. It's also alright if you
insist on those rules and decide to take your toys home if you don't get to
play by those rules. This is pretty much what the GPL is. When it gets
obnoxious, is when people start saying that you're "evil" for not using your
favorite rules. That's possible, particularly when the complexity of the real
world brings pragmatism into play, but it is a bit of an extraordinary claim,
especially when put in absolutist terms.

That would be like saying that you're "evil" for playing any kind of ball game
without a helmet. This could be a highly beneficial and pragmatic thing in one
context (professional baseball) but just silly and obnoxious in another.
(Sandlot game with a wiffle ball.)

Stallman and the FSF make the claim that there is a new set of human rights
concerning software that we weren't aware of before. That is the crux of the
matter. Is it enough to let everything play out "in the marketplace" and let
people vote with their dollars and their feet, or is there a new set of rights
that should be enshrined in law?

I do think Stallman has a point, and that much good has come of copyleft and
activism by the FSF, but does this give someone a right to declare what is
absolutely good and evil? I don't think so.

------
AdrianRossouw
i use MIT for almost all my code these days, because I tend to work in
javascript, and it just feels like MIT/BSD is the natural license of the web.

To even try and restrict what others can do with code that I send to their
browser to have it work in the first place, feels dumb.

