
GPL FUD round N+1 - chanux
http://ahren.org/code/bit/gpl-fud-round-n1
======
schacon
I think the reason I don't like the GPL is that it is aggressively
pessimistic. If you release your code under MIT or BSD and _ask_ people to
contribute back if they improve it, most people actually will - I don't think
I've ever used GPL and I've gotten hundreds of patches for projects of mine.
People don't contribute to open source because they're forced, they do it
because they want the network effect of everyone else contributing and they
want the software to be better.

However, GPL says "I don't trust you, and I don't trust you so much that I'm
going to legally severely limit what you can do with my code unless you
promise legally to share my philosophy". It's not only frustrating when you're
trying to figure out what you can and can't do with it, but it just seems kind
of mean-spirited. It implies that they feel that if they don't legally force
you to, you'll try to take advantage of everyone, which is sad.

Maybe I want to use a library for a commercial application and would then be
able to spend part of my work day improving it - if it's GPL, it's use is not
even an option assuming that the company will not open source the main
product, if it's not GPL than both the library and the company benefits.

I guess at the end of the day, I just don't care if someone takes advantage of
some of my code - several of our GitHub competitors use our MIT'd Grit library
we use to run their own sites, but honestly we don't really care - we'd rather
have a larger user base and volunteer pool and let even our competitors be
able to contribute back than shut everyone out because we are so distrustful
and protective of our code and time.

I just think that asking is more effective than threatening, and to me the GPL
is threatening.

------
jrockway
I think I get why people don't like the GPL -- it forces them to do something,
whereas other licenses don't. If you use GPL'd code, your code _has_ to be
GPL, there is no option. If you use BSD code, you have the option of making
your code free, or you have the option of not doing that.

I read a book called "Predictably Irrational" that documents this effect. The
author set people up with a computer game where the goal was to run around and
collect as many points as possible. Bags would randomly appear, you would
collect them, and that would get you the points. Different rooms had different
rates of points appearing, and some rooms would produce higher value objects,
etc. He tried a variety of scenarios to see how people would behave; one
involved a door to another room (which might have more earning potential than
the current room) that you could travel through at the cost of a certain
number of points. If you didn't go through the door, it would eventually
disappear. He found that people, even after finding that the room that the
door led to was worthless, would still waste time and points to keep the door
open. Nobody wanted to let an opportunity, even a poor one, pass.

I think this explains the (predictably) irrational hatred for the GPL; it
makes doors close, and that is something we are apparently hard-wired to hate.
Even though we know we are never going to make our free app proprietary, we
want that option.

~~~
gabrielroth
You're kind of stacking the deck here. It's true that a programmer who knows
for certain that she's never going to make her code proprietary would be
behaving irrationally to insist on keeping an option she'll never use.

But that's a rare case. What about the more numerous programmers who don't
know for certain? If they choose to keep the proprietary option open by
eschewing GPL-licensed code, that could be perfectly rational, depending on
the value to them of the GPL-licensed code they're declining to use.

And what about the programmers, like Daniel Jalkut, who work on proprietary
commercial projects? Of course he'd prefer for other projects to use liberal
licenses that would allow him to make use of them. That's the opposite of
irrational; it's just straightforward incentives.

------
RyanMcGreal
FTA: _Each commercial application is the dead end of the tree of evolution of
that code, for nobody else can take it further._

Stated simply and elegantly.

~~~
rawr
Bah. I come to Hacker News to get away from the freetards on Slashdot. You're
making this difficult for me :-)

~~~
jrockway
I come to Hacker News to avoid having to read words ending in "tards".

~~~
nothingmuch
DIE IN A FIRE RTARD

------
Periodic
I see what the GPL wants to do as quite noble. It's a share-and-share-alike
system.

I've run into many people who are very opposed to the GPL, generally because
they can't build upon GPL code without being required to release their code
under a GPL license. In general, I see these people as wanting a license to
protect their ideas, but a license isn't designed for that. A license protects
work (by preventing what you can do with it, while the idea is often evident,
documented, or easily derivable). A patent protects ideas. If your idea is so
good it can stand on its own then you can patent it and release the code in
whatever way you want because you can still prevent people from using your
idea even if they can see your code.

Heck, if your code is so great that you should get all the royalties, then
wouldn't you want everyone else to be able to see how awesome it is?

~~~
jrockway
Let's not advocate software patents.

I would like to, say, write a windowing system from scratch without having to
worry that my use of xor-ing a cursor onto the screen is patented.
([http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/int-p...](http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/int-
prop/heckel-debunking.html))

Sure, that's a good idea, but the value is in the windowing system, not a tiny
implementation detail. That is why copyright is the right tool for protecting
computer programs; patents just stall progress.

------
blasdel
As inept as the criticisms he's responding to are, Wordpress themes needing to
be GPL is _totally ridiculous_ \-- they're input to the program!

