Why GPL-licensed code is dangerous for businesses to use

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Because it's not stiffer than what's already provided for in copyright law.

If it weren't people like Asher wouldn't be in a tizzy.

I never said Asher was logical.

[Asher]

I honestly believe I have quantified very verbosely why many businesses think the GPL is bad.

1) This sentence doesn't actually make any sense. "quantified?"

Meant qualified, lack of coffee at that point.

Dude, close-source shops don't avoid GPL because it's a legal minefield; they avoid GPL because it's deliberately incompatible with closed-source software. It's a meaningless criticism because this incompatibility is a feature, not a bug.

Uhhh. I still don't think you get it. No one is saying this is a bug. Yes, it's a feature. I've very explicitly stated many times that this is the point of the GPL (you even disagreed with me, which seems to be a slight reversal on your part here?)

It is not meaningless. I honestly don't understand where you are going with this. This is a feature of the GPL, and it's a bad one. It locks up much OSS to an OSS-only world. It draws a line in the sand and forbids people to cross it. It's an adversarial type of relationship that it creates.

So you admit your opposition is ideological.

Yes, that's why I personally use the BSD license. The GPL license is the Catholic Church to the BSD's Agnosticism.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yes, the solution is frequently "don't use GPL code", which is something that I find to be a waste as there is some really good GPL code out there that the public (by way of implementations) would really benefit from. The code is already free (the vast majority of the time), but the dogmatic license is such a legal minefield and a serious threat that GPL code is largely the equivalent of a social leper. The GPL software ecosystem is its leper colony.

And to me, that should be against the spirit of anyone who truly believes in the movement of open source code. For all of the stuff I've ever made on my own time, I've attached a BSD license to it. Maybe it's because I'm a better person than GPL supporters, I'll never know.

The difference is that most people who release under the GPL could care less about whether or not you want to use their software in your commercial project. For them, it's no loss at all that you can't, it's a benefit that you can't take their labor and make money off it while they get nothing.

So again, it's the same point I made before: the GPL only keeps people out who wouldn't be opening up their code in any case. It doesn't prevent any code from being open sourced, the only possible way it's hurting the open source community is by damaging their reputation with people they don't care about in the first place. Is BSD a more free license than the GPL? Absolutely, and by design. But that doesn't make the GPL evil.

[Asher]

The problem is the GPL is tarnishing the legacy and reputation of genuinely free and open source software. Mention "open source" to most companies and they'll instantly shut that down.

The GPL's reputation and pervasiveness is harming the community as a whole, insofar as it's preventing lots of good code from being used just because of its license.

[self biased]

speaking as someone who is wholly ignorant of such matters, what does GPL and BSD stand for, and what are the general terms of each? i'm too lazy to google it.

[Kuciwalker]

Uhhh. I still don't think you get it. No one is saying this is a bug. Yes, it's a feature. I've very explicitly stated many times that this is the point of the GPL (you even disagreed with me, which seems to be a slight reversal on your part here?)

No, you repeatedly claimed* that the purpose of the GPL is to SNEAK INTO closed-source software and force it open. Like, when RMS came up with it he was cackling gleefully at the thought that a closed-source shop would accidentally include GPL code and then THE WORLD WOULD BE HIS. I repeatedly dismissed this as silly.

The purpose of the GPL is to make sure people who want to use your code have to give back to the GPL-ideology community. It isn't meant to impose itself on people who don't want to use your code.

* At the very least, I openly claimed to interpret your arguments this way, and you didn't dispute it then.

It is not meaningless. I honestly don't understand where you are going with this. This is a feature of the GPL, and it's a bad one. It locks up much OSS to an OSS-only world. It draws a line in the sand and forbids people to cross it. It's an adversarial type of relationship that it creates.

The title of the thread is "Why GPL-licensed code is dangerous for businesses to use". IT'S NOT. Yes, it may not be the correct choice (i.e. if you want to write closed-source software), but "the GPL works exactly the way you think it does" does not make it dangerous.

[Kuciwalker]

speaking as someone who is wholly ignorant of such matters, what does GPL and BSD stand for, and what are the general terms of each? i'm too lazy to google it.

GPL = General Public License = a license where anyone is free to copy, modify, and redistribute the code, on the condition that you redistribute the code under the GPL. That is, if I release code under the GPL and you modify it and give it to other people, you must also let them modify it and give it to other people. Code that gets open-sourced under the GPL cannot be "closed".

BSD = Berkeley Software Distribution = a license that's functionally equivalent to the public domain. Anyone can use your code for anything they want, and give it to anyone else under any terms they want.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument "GPL is dangerous because it's not well understood by a lot of people and therefore you may misuse it".

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Like, when RMS came up with it he was cackling gleefully at the thought that a closed-source shop would accidentally include GPL code and then THE WORLD WOULD BE HIS. I repeatedly dismissed this as silly.

Oh, quite silly indeed....

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The problem is the GPL is tarnishing the legacy and reputation of genuinely free and open source software. Mention "open source" to most companies and they'll instantly shut that down.

Yeah, but would it really be that different with any other license? In terms of releasing their code, I mean, not using other people's code. And what good is it to the open source community if their code is used and they get nothing in return?

The GPL's reputation and pervasiveness is harming the community as a whole, insofar as it's preventing lots of good code from being used just because of its license.

Certainly, at least as long as 'community' includes people who don't want to play by the GPL's rules. I could say the same about any closed source release. Like I said, it's not BSD, nor is it intended to be. Would my life be easier if all GPL'd code was BSD? Absolutely...but it would be easier if all closed source was BSD as well.

[Asher]

The title of the thread is "Why GPL-licensed code is dangerous for businesses to use". IT'S NOT.

How can you say it's not? One small slipup from anyone in the production chain, from an outsourced worker in India to an unpaid intern, can jeopardize the IP of the whole project. There's no other word for that than 'dangerous'.

[onodera]

By the way, what is the difference between BSD and MIT licenses?

[Asher]

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument "GPL is dangerous because it's not well understood by a lot of people and therefore you may misuse it".

You are repeatedly making the assumption that GPL code is intentionally used and linked to. That is not the problem. If people use the GPL code and they know it's GPL, they deserve what's coming to them.

The problem is I don't think you comprehend just how very easy it is to "contaminate" a project by linking it to GPL code or inserting GPL code snippits into a product. It's virtually impossible to ensure this never happens on any reasonably sized project aside from drilling it into employee's heads that GPL == VERY BAD, DO NOT TOUCH. A simple error by a low-level employee can jeopardize everything.

In Cisco's case, they got burned by a subcontractor several levels below them. They knew and understood the problems with the GPL and had a policy to never, ever use the code. The GPL was still, demonstrably, very dangerous to them.

[Asher]

By the way, what is the difference between BSD and MIT licenses?

MIT is a modified BSD.

The MIT License is similar to the 3-clause "modified" BSD license, except that the BSD license contains a notice prohibiting the use of the name of the copyright holder in promotion. This is sometimes present in versions of the MIT License, as noted above.

The original BSD license also includes a clause requiring all advertising of the software to display a notice crediting its authors. This "advertising clause" (since disavowed by UC Berkeley[7]) is only present in the modified MIT License used by XFree86.

The MIT License states more explicitly the rights given to the end-user, including the right to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell the software.

A 2-clause BSD-style license used by FreeBSD (and preferred for NetBSD) is essentially identical to the MIT License, as it contains neither an advertising clause, nor a promotional use of copyright holder's name prohibition.

[self biased]

my understanding is as follows: once a Widget uses a component that is GPL, the entire Widget becomes GPL. GPL basically says "Hi. I didn't make any money off this, and if you use it, you can't either."

BSD can be used in Widgets without charge so long as the manufacturer gives credit to the component's creator.

BSD basically says "Hi. I made this for free, take it or leave it."

GPL seems like someone petulantly saying that if they can't make money off it, than nobody can. there's a comparison between apolyton and the Weeping Panda Club, but i can't be arsed to make a suitable joke out of it.