

Ask HN: GPL software works but what are the cons? - starter

I appreciate the Open Source community and all the positive things its doing for people and places. For instance, the GPL makes it easy to enter the market without a huge time investment into product development.<p>That being said, what are some cons to using Open Source code when developing applications for the masses? For example, is building a social network or designing a template using a GPL software package a bad business plan?<p>I just want to know where to start. Maybe the question I should be asking is something like this... What type of software is the Fortune 500 using and why?
======
makecheck
There are in fact many licenses that meet the open source definition, and any
concerns about the restrictions of one might be dealt with by looking only at
projects based on other licenses:
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category>

For example, basing a business on _GPL_ as you stated may be a problem because
it would compel everything in the stack (including something unique built on
top of established code) to be opened up...so it would be hard to build
something truly competitive without showing all your cards to your
competitors. Other open source licenses such as MIT's have fewer restrictions
and amount to preserving copyrights and the right to reuse but without any
warranties.

Of course you can only build on code that is "compatible" with the license you
choose. There may be solutions that are only available under GPL licenses, in
which case you have to decide to live with those restrictions or build your
own.

~~~
gaius
That's not strictly true: the end-run around the GPL is SaaS - if you are not
_distributing_ your software, merely running it on your own servers, then you
can keep what you've built on a GPL foundation as secret as you like. The most
high-profile example of this approach is Google. They _do_ give away a lot of
stuff true, but their core tech, like BigTable, is kept under lock and key.

~~~
makecheck
Technically true perhaps, but morally gray at best. As I see it, a project
that's using the GPL is making a pretty clear statement of their _intent_ ,
regardless of whatever slimy legal loopholes may have been left unclosed. A
GPL project author probably _doesn't_ want other people harvesting their work
and keeping the changes secret, even if there are technically ways around the
GPL's distribution clauses.

~~~
gaius
FWIW I agree with you, but it is how it is.

~~~
starter
I'm confused. Are you saying that using private GPL software in the SaaS
vertical is NOT ok?

~~~
gaius
I'm saying that while it violates the _spirit_ of the GPL, it is nonetheless
completely permitted. As I say, Google do it.

~~~
starter
I see. It all comes down to morals. With all the Open Source Community has
given me, I'm not interested in stepping on toes. Not sure what the future
holds but thanks for making your perspective crystal clear!

------
mindcrime
You haven't really given us enough information to answer your question. In
fact, I suspect you haven't yet asked the question(s) you really want/need to
ask. I think you need to spend some time getting familiar with the top most
popular F/OSS licenses, and the implications of each of them. There's a really
good book on that very topic titled _Understanding Open Source and Free
Software Licensing_. I recommend you read it for a good introduction:

<http://oreilly.com/catalog/osfreesoft/book/>

 _For example, is building a social network or designing a template using a
GPL software package a bad business plan?_

Using, or not using, F/OSS isn't a business plan, it's just a detail - one
element of many in a business model/plan. Whether or not it's a bad idea would
depend on the other elements of said model. That said, Red Hat and others have
proven the validity of selling F/OSS, if that's what you're getting at.

~~~
starter
Thanks for laying it out like that. Yes, its a detail but I think its a very
important detail don't you think?

~~~
mindcrime
Sure, most likely it is important - but without knowing more about the
intended scenario, it's really hard to say. In the case of a social network,
if one were to make a site which is strictly hosted, and never distributes
their code, then one could use GPL'd code to your hearts content with
basically no ramifications. But decide to sell the product for use on-site,
and now it's a whole different game. Or pull in AGPL'd code versus GPL'd code
and it changes the game. Hence my previous reference to the F/OSS licensing
book. Understanding all these licenses and how they interact and what their
implications are, is pretty important for anybody going down this path.

~~~
starter
Yes, well, I'll at least have enough foresight to avoid AGPL or similar code
if possible. Its just a good thing to understand what I may encounter once
I've invested a year and a million dollars into something which _might_ have
unwanted public rights.

------
prodigal_erik
You can't link to GPL-incompatible code if you're going to distribute the
result. If you want to maintain an exclusive right to sell out (which worked
well for MySQL AB), you have to get copyright assignments from day one, not
just accept GPL'd patches. Some people won't contribute to GPL projects on
principle, though I don't think anyone knows how that number compares to
people like me who won't contribute to BSDL projects.

