Shitstorm in OpenGL rendered Hell.

Matthew on 15/4/2010 at 18:47

Ah, I see. To me that does make his actions a bit nasty when an entire package was then relying on his work, albeit that the GPL meant he couldn't take it away fully. But hey, he's entirely at liberty to stop working on it.

dvrabel on 15/4/2010 at 23:23

Quote Posted by Phatose

Actually, it very decidedly limits your 'rights'. The GPL outright disallows you from releasing anything that so much as links to GPLed software without also releasing all source code.

The ability to link to a library isn't something ordinarily permitted by copyright laws (the resulting program is considered a derivative work of the library). The library's copyright holder must give permission (a license) before you can link to it.

Quote Posted by Assidragon

GPL licence basically means you forfeit all your rights concering your application

You said that already. What specific rights that you have as the copyright holder of a work are you forfeiting by releasing the work under the GPL? Please give examples.

Just to be clear, when I'm talking about rights I'm referring only to the rights granted by copyright law: economic rights (the right to copy, distribute and modify a work, and the right to restrict others from doing so) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29) moral rights.

Yakoob on 15/4/2010 at 23:49

Quote Posted by dvrabel

the right to copy, distribute and modify a work, and the right to restrict others from doing so

There's your answer right there

Phatose on 16/4/2010 at 04:25

Quote Posted by dvrabel

That is correct. And I listed the price of that license in the rest of the post, and Yakoob has just reminded you of that price.

You use GPL code anywhere, any releases you make of anything derivative - and this is derivative in the sense where a game linked to a GPLed graphic library is derivative - you *must* release it under the GPL.

It's viral nature is intentional, and philosophical. But the reality is that there are open source licenses that do not carry any such restrictions. These were licenses created precisely because of the problems GPL creates for software producers, due to it's viral nature.

For example, say I'm making a game and want to use a GPLed graphics library. OK, so now I have to release under the GPL. But wait! The audio library I'm using? Not GPL. Physics library? Not GPL. Can't use either. The GPL ends up being as straightjacketing to a dev as any vendor lock in ever was. Intentionally of course - the FSF wants to make all software GPL. And so, their definition of 'free' is intentionally set up to ignore that little bit.

Now if they want to go on a moral crusade, fine. But lets not sit here and pretend it's actually free. Compared to say, the Apache License or the BSD license, the GPL is quite restrictive.

Eabin on 16/4/2010 at 13:16

Well, a large part of the open-source software libraries are licensed under L-GPL anyway, so you can link to them from your proprietary application without violating anything.
And the GPL is only restricting your rights if you intend to user other peoples work. It ensures that you won't just repackage it and try to sell it as new. If you create a piece of software yourself, you can put it under any kind of license you like. E.g. mysql has a dual-licensing model, where you can opt to use it under GPL or buy a commercial license. So the point is: putting a piece of software under GPL does not inherently restrict your rights. building on top of software which is under GPL otoh will restrict them.

and btw: who said that just because past implementations of communisms didn't work out implies that the basic ideas aren't worth thinking about?

lost_soul on 16/4/2010 at 18:47

This is why (as a general rule) I always treat FOSS developers with respect. They aren't being paid to work on the project, and if enough people complain to them that "It doesn't work on my hardware!" or "There are too many bugs!" they may just abandon it and leave. I also believe it is important to say thanks every once in a wile if one finds a project particularly useful. If the developers only ever hear complaints, they may also get discouraged.

I've thanked Chris Montgomery from the Xiph.org foundation for developing the Vorbis format. Although the Theora codec still has quality issues, the Vorbis one sounds superior to MP3 and the hardware support is there, making Vorbis a suitable alternative. Vorbis is also used in TUNS of games, from Penumbra, to UT, to GTA, to Halo, to Doom 3, to countless others.

Phatose on 16/4/2010 at 20:53

Communism is a very poor analogy for OSS. The benefits are open to essentially anyone, but the actual work is done only by a few. Contributing Devs do the work, end users and non-contributing devs do none, but everyone gets to use the software. So it's more like having a working class which does everything, and then you've got a class which does nothing and enjoys the benefits.

Actually, maybe communism isn't such a bad analogy after all.

Eabin: I've seen a similar reasoning applied before, and it always seems kind of off to me. The freedoms granted by the GPL are really only of any use whatsoever if you actually intend to make use of or the modify the code - if not, it's just freeware, and being open source means precisely zippo. In which case you're left with freedoms that only apply if you don't have any actual intent of using them. Seems utterly pointless.

Eabin on 16/4/2010 at 23:24

i'm not sure if i can follow you: what sort of freedom other than being able to use the code commercially would you like to have?

Phatose on 17/4/2010 at 00:23

Absolute freedom to choose my own license. As already noted, the GPL doesn't just prevent commercial uses, it prevents use of a number of non-GPL libraries even in non-commercial releases because of license incompatibility. For instance, I can't use code from a GPL library and the Microsoft Permissive License - despite both being free, open source licenses - because the GPL is designed in a viral, take over the world fashion.

Then, after that problem is dealt with, then we should probably consider whether or not commercial freedom is part of freedom or not - because from what I'm seeing, the FSF and the GPL's definition of freedom doesn't include that one.

Or, in short, I want my free software to be actually free, or at least to have restrictions limited to the 'add on these two lines in the readme' of the Apache License. But the GPL? It's open source, but it's not free.

Eabin on 17/4/2010 at 10:06

i see. this is a fair point, and i agree that it would be better if the gpl would allow mixing in other open source licenses.

as for commercialization, i still think something like the LGPL is ok, because you can use it, but not sell it as your own.