Boycott GPL

15 Comments

• But no one forced Cisco or Broadcom to use GPL code, those companies chose to use it and knew the terms (or at least they should have known the terms.) The idea of the GPL code is that you do own all the rights to your code but you're agreeing to benefit and allow others to benefit from the work done under the GPL. This doesn't fly with a lot of people and that is fine. Just use a different license like BSD, etc. which you already mentioned. But why should it be so bad that the FSF enforce its license? Wouldn't a commercial company do the same thing if their license was broken by another company?
  

• And the linux weanies wonder why Ariadne ain't GPL'd... because I need to eat?? I don't want all my time thrown into a black hole with no reward.
  

• Wow, what a heap of sh*t. I thought the Slashdot crowd was bad. As Joshua says, no-one is forcing people to use GPL'd code. Bottom line - you can release code that you write yourself under any license you like (if you like a BSD-style license better then use that), but if you want to use someone elses code then accept the consequences.
  
  
  
  Also, I think your stealing analogy is waaaay off. I would arge that companies/individuals using GPL'd code in commercial apps are stealing from the person or persons who wrote the original GPL code, and intended it to be used and licensed in a certain way. How would you violating the GPL be any different to someone who buys your software violating whatever license you apply to it?
  

• "The thing was designed by a bunch of communist hackers that think that you should never own the rights to the source code you create."
  
  -> copyright is very much a pillar of the GPL.
  
  
  
  "The truth is that using GPL'd code isn't free at all, you will pay if you use it."
  
  -> Were did you read the GPL is a way to pay nothing? The GPL is all about taking *and* giving back. Not just taking.
  
  
  
  License isn't about religion or communism. Nobody forces you to use a given license, thus there is no need to boycott one. Feel free to use other licenses.
  
  I am sorry that you feel oppressed by a choice given to you.
  
  
  
  I recommend that you read a license before using it. This applies to the GPL and any other license.
  
  Some people may wish that all software to be GPLed, but we all know this won't happen. In the mean time, the GPLed was never forced on anybody, was it?
  
  
  
  One thing I will agree with you: there may be licenses that suit you best out there. Feel free to explore the options, as picking a license is an important choice.
  

• "Just use a different license like BSD, etc. which you already mentioned."
  
  
  
  Yep. That is what I am saying.
  
  
  
  "But why should it be so bad that the FSF enforce its license? Wouldn't a commercial company do the same thing if their license was broken by another company?
  
  
  
  Yep. And the FSF is perfectly justified in doing this.
  
  
  
  "How would you violating the GPL be any different to someone who buys your software violating whatever license you apply to it? "
  
  
  
  It isn't. You miss the point. I'm not saying that it is OK to violate GPL, I'm saying that you are going to lose money by using GPL code.
  
  
  
  "In the mean time, the GPLed was never forced on anybody, was it?"
  
  
  
  Nope. Though many people have run into trouble by assuming incorrect things about GPL'd code.
  
  

• So what you mean isn't "Boycott GPL" but rather "The reason I think you shouldn't use GPL" ;-)
  
  Assuming things about licenses is a bad thing in general...
  
  Also, the FSF seems smoother than most in terms of helping the infringers identify and fix the issue (compared to, say, SCO).
  
  
  
  It's funny: you make it sound like Cisco included a couple of files of GPLed source code in their product, rather than including a couple of files of their product in Linux. Wow, now their "whole" product is contaminated ;-)
  

• Yah, I guess that is accurate, but "Boycott GPL" gets so many more flames :-).
  

• Communist hackers eh? What's communism got to do with the matter? And when did Communist hacker become an insult? Comments like that belong the schoolyard along with shouts of facist hacker.
  
  
  
  If Cisco chose to use GPLed code in their profuct they damn well knew what they were doing. If they are in violation of the license it is no different from me violating the license of the software you publish.
  
  
  
  How about boycott Cisco for violating the licenses of 3rd party software... that would be in pursuit of the rights of software produceers and publishers.
  
  
  
  You think for a second anybody publishes code under GPL without intending it's free distribution. That's the whole point of GPL, it's not an accident. Some people (a lot of people) *intend* for their code to be distributed freely... oh gosh darnit Bill, I slipped and accidently slapped GPL on the next release of Word, whatever are we going to do now?
  
  
  
  I think you're missing a large part of the view with assumption, and perhaps need to take a closer looke at OSS, GPL, FSF foundation etc.
  

• "The thing was designed by a bunch of communist hackers that think that you should never own the rights to the source code you create."
  
  
  
  That is just flat out wrong. If you honestly believe that...my opinion of you just dropped immensely, as it is based on abosultely no facts, and contradicts the facts that are widely known. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of how the GPL works would not spout such nonsense unless they have an ulterior motive.
  
  
  
  If you don't believe that and just wanted flames...well, you got em. Are you happy now?
  
  

• You don't have to use GPL-ed code. If you don't like the license, don't use the code. I hate the GPL in every cell of my body but I also think there is enough good code outside the GPL-universe that is f.e. BSD licensed or other real open license so you don't need GPL-ed code.
  
  
  
  Besides that, I don't think the GPL will be held up in court. But that's another story. :) (oh, and communists werent/aren't bad, Jesse. It's just a political opinion.)
  

• Just because somebody makes their sourcecode available doesn't mean you have a God-given right to use it. If it's got a commercial license, you have to pay for it. If it's GPL, you have other requirements to meet. Putting GPL code in your product without obeying the terms is no different than putting commercial sourcecode in your product without paying the licensing fee.
  
  
  
  There's room for everyone. If you don't like the GPL's terms, just pretend all GPL code doesn't exist and you'll be just fine. Plenty of people do like the GPL, so why not let them do their thing?
  

• How does someone loose money from using GPL'd code? All cisco has to do is release any source they modified and be done with it. A typical cisco user isn't likely to roll-their-own product, so sales aren't going to magically disapeer. Your argument is ill-informed and makes absolutley no sense.
  
  
  
  And if you want flames, this country was founded on public domain ideals. Public domain is what forms our culture and history. Copywrite was meant only as a temporary protection to allow someone to make a reasonable profit from their work, and then release it for everyone to benefit from it (but of course, individual people rarely actually get to benefit from copywrite these days). Take disney for example, it wouldn't exist if it wasn't for public domain works. So take your communist comments and shove it up your... well, you know.
  

• PS. Cadmium:
  
  "this country was founded on public domain ideals"
  
  
  
  I'd suggest that you are one of the people being duped if you are confusing GPL with public domain. And perhaps missing the point, everyone here seems to really like the idea of sharing in the public domain, our problem (or mine at least) is that GPL takes sharing out of the public domain.
  

• This is a disappointing reaction. It's a common fallacy about the GPL held by many people who should know better. You're seriously comparing a _voluntary_ choice to use one of the more extreme free software licenses with theft.
  
  
  
  If you want to maximise product sales then don't use the GPL or any GPL'd code. It's as simple as that.
  
  
  
  However if you want your code to be Free (note the capital F indicating long-haired hippiedom) rather than profitable then use the GPL and GPL'd code. What's so hard to understand about that?
  

• What's so hard to understand about 'If you want your code to be Free'? The titles and cliches are what cause the confusion I think. They convince some people that gpl is a good way to share code, thinking this is like the public domain. How do we reach the point that "wanting code to be Free" means gpl and not public domain? Hmm, well I'm struggling, but please bear with me, as I'm not used to personification as a form of argument...
  
  
  
  Should I be thinking barnyard animal? Free to graze where it feels? Free jump the fences that lead to other meadows? Free to assemble with other code as it pleases? Free to be used by others, regardless of how they look or think? Free from legal persecutions? Sorry, either it is a complex subject, or just someone chose the wrong word.
  
  
  
  PS I think the theft idea came from
  
  1) Everyone should use Linux because it is FREE!
  
  2) Hey, you used Linux, pay up buddy, you should know better!
  
  If a salesman did that to you, you'ld be left with at least a sour taste I assume..