GPL distribution requirements and Linux

If it's not ZDoom, it goes here.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49056
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: GPL distribution requirements and Linux

Post by Graf Zahl »

dpJudas wrote:I'm pro open source but very much anti-FSF. Their vision of the future, their unrealistic ideas of how I'm supposed to make money as a software developer, along with their war on proprietary software (especially hardware drivers) is something I don't want to have anything to do with. They don't care how much collateral damage something causes as long as it furthers their agenda.

Very much agreed here. The GPLv3, even more than the GPLv2 was solely about pushing an agenda, not about providing a decent license. Most of the changes were merely about preventing "abuse", where "abuse" really means to prohibit use of the software in scenarios where the conditions for their version of "free" cannot be met.

Also very true about the collateral damage they inflict. GPL licensed code is virtually unusable in a corporate environment. Nobody wants to talk to legal to clear things up and the GPL really is a legal nightmare with all its strings attached. I think it's not really surprising that its popularity is declining. Most code on Giithub is provided under a permissive license and the authors of this code are really out to help other developers, not fostering this knee-jerk attitude of "freedom". What wasn't said yet is that if software development went the route of the FSF millions of people would be without a job because their work couldn't be financed anymore.

I'd still say that for an open source release of commercial game source some of the GPL's restrictions are a necessary evil, but it surely does not help when some people with a rigid view on these things start injecting their agenda, like downgrading the license as in EDuke's case. So regarding Leileilol's Debian rants, fuck them! In a way it's ironic. Companies like Apple get rightfully lambasted for their total control over their stores, but in reality the Linux world is just the same - the main software repos are in the hands of people with an agenda, but since their distribution service is deemed essential everybody kowtows before their demands, just with inverse requirements.
User avatar
Chris
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 12:07 am
Graphics Processor: ATI/AMD with Vulkan/Metal Support

Re: GPL distribution requirements and Linux

Post by Chris »

Rachael wrote:And that all looks good in writing, but in practice it's more trouble than it's worth. Just ask the simple question "can I put GPLv2 code in a GPLv3 project?" and you have effectively summed up GPL's problems in a nutshell.
I don't think "Can I put [license 1] code in a [license 2] project?" is ever a simple question, even if it is just a version difference. I can't imagine the mess developers (or really, their hired lawyers) have to deal with when working with proprietary engines and wanting to integrate other things like Havok, Bink/RAD, Wwise, and whatever else with all their proprietary licenses into your game, let alone updating them and getting updated licenses. Maybe if you're lucky, those developers have already verified no licensing conflicts with each other, but who knows. At least the GNU/FSF provides a guide stating what other known licenses are GPL compatible and with what versions.
Generally, the way I see it, good people will give you credit and share-alike just as you shared to them. You can't force everyone to be a good people - all you can do is remove yourself from any situation dealing with them.
Yes, and that's what helps me see BSD as an acceptable license. I'd prefer to use something like the LGPL (for my stuff personally), but some systems are so restrictive that the system itself makes LGPL code problematic regardless of the app/game that actually uses it (which I consider a problem with the system, not the LGPL license), so BSD may be a decent alternative for code you want usable in those places.
SanyaWaffles wrote:For me the problem is when a layman can't understand your licensing and you need a lawyer to understand it, that's a problem...
That's the law for you, where nothing is as simple as it should be. Courts are very particular about wording, since they rely on exactly what something says instead of trying to guess the intent of a license or contract. The reason these things get so complex so quickly is because of the multitude of ways people try to wiggle out of any liability they can, which is easier to do when any potentially vague word or undefined term or terse phrasing could be construed to mean something other than what the creator intended (or on the reverse, the vague-ishness scaring off potential users because it reads as if they could easily enforce a heavy liability for something minor despite having no intention to).
Graf Zahl wrote:The GPLv3, even more than the GPLv2 was solely about pushing an agenda, not about providing a decent license. Most of the changes were merely about preventing "abuse", where "abuse" really means to prohibit use of the software in scenarios where the conditions for their version of "free" cannot be met.
I can't speak for the GPLv3 as a whole, but this does sound like abuse, taking the hard work people put into a project and knowingly not abide by the intended agreement the code was provided under. If you have a scenario where you knowingly can't abide by the intention of the GPL, why would you take GPL code anyway and use legal weaseling to get out of any liabiility? I have no sympathy for that kind of underhanded behavior. If I made and released code under the GPL, expecting users of that code to always be able to modify and replace it as they want since the license says that, then discover someone could prevent a replacement from being used on something that contains my code, I would want that to stop. Similarly, if I accept open source code for a project that I find out later was patented, and the patent holder is discriminantly requiring payments from people who use my project that's supposed to be zero-cost, I would want a way to stop that.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49056
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: GPL distribution requirements and Linux

Post by Graf Zahl »

Note that I put "abuse" in quotation marks. What I mean is that the GPL is not an honest license, it has been designed to push an agenda. And what I particularly take exception with is the word "free" here. Thanks to all that verbose legalese the license is ultimately anything but "free", because it's virtually impossible to do things right without consulting a lawyer. There's a reason why at my workplace there's a strict "no GPL" clause, to the point that it is not allowed to store GPL licensed code on our work computers without express permission. And the only ones getting permission are those who need to work on the server environment which by necessity uses GPL software on Linux. It's not the freedom part that's the problem, what's the problem here is that there is this feeling that even *looking* at GPL code may taint our proprietary software - and the FSF and their attitude only add to that fear.

That's always the problem with an idealistic ideology. The desired goal is constantly at odds with real life demands.
User avatar
ketmar
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: GPL distribution requirements and Linux

Post by ketmar »

>it has been designed to push an agenda
exactly. like any other license out there.

>it's virtually impossible to do things right without consulting a lawyer
just as planned.

>There's a reason why at my workplace there's a strict "no GPL" clause, to the point
>that it is not allowed to store GPL licensed code on our work computers without
>express permission

again, just as planned.

>what's the problem here is that there is this feeling that even *looking* at GPL
>code may taint our proprietary software

and again, just as planned.

GPL does exactly what is was designed to do. and it always fun to read stories about how some corporations cannot use GPL code -- because that is exactly the reason (one of the reasons) we (those who choose GPL) put our code under GPL.
User avatar
Rachael
Posts: 13530
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her
Contact:

Re: GPL distribution requirements and Linux

Post by Rachael »

I am all for sticking it to corporations, but the GPL sticks it to regular users, too. Too much collateral damage.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49056
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: GPL distribution requirements and Linux

Post by Graf Zahl »

The GPL would have been just as effective as it was supposed to be if it had gotten the most obnoxious clauses removed. The one that's particularly ridiculous is the must-allow-commercial-exploitation clause and the insistence to extend it to all code coming in touch with the GPL. Equally bad is that "commercial exploitation" does not distinguish between selling the software for profit or making the software available through commercial channels. This alone is often more toxic than the "must release source" clause.
And in the end it really does not help. I am dead certain that many corporate code contains some secret GPL stuff which has just been twisted a little to ensure it cannot be detected. I don't know any developer who hasn't done it. Nobody can ever analyze all code fragments in corporate code and verify that all license attributions are correct.

So in the end it's not the corporations that get screwed but the small developers who inevitably get the full brunt of the FOSS "movement"'s reaction when they do not comply 200%.
User avatar
ketmar
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: GPL distribution requirements and Linux

Post by ketmar »

for my whole life (ok, for 20+ years of using GNU/Linux and FOSS) i had precisely zero problems with GPL, both as a developer, and as a user. the whole design of GPL is meant to damage those who want to take away some basic rights GPL is protecting. if one don't want to do that -- GPL poses zero problems.

but yep, i've been in the sutuations like "oh, can you relicense your code under some 'permissive' license, so we can use it for our business needs?" somehow when i asked how much they will pay for that, i got all kinds of excuses, but never money. sure, pals, i always dreamt to do some free work, so you could get more money using it, that's what i dedicated my life to.

therefore, my code is "GPL or GTFO".
User avatar
ketmar
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: GPL distribution requirements and Linux

Post by ketmar »

>So in the end it's not the corporations that get screwed but the small developers
>who inevitably get the full brunt of the FOSS "movement"'s reaction when they do
>not comply 200%.

100% is more than enough. yeah, GPL carries political agenda with it, and many FOSS devs value it as much as everything else. there is no way you can give away your freedom partially, or "just one little time", it is either all or nothing. one cannot "stay out of politics", anything you do is a political act, because your actions inevitably supports some views, and those views are political. even "i don't want to have anything in common with politics" is political declaration.

but sorry, it seems i am dragging this into direction where the whole talk will be very heated, and will bring nothing valuable. i'm not very good at keeping my views for myself, it seems. ;-)
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49056
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: GPL distribution requirements and Linux

Post by Graf Zahl »

If I had that problem I'd still use LGPL instead of GPL. It still makes it impossible for such people to use the code but doesn't come as a poison pill.
It's also very important what the code in question is about. For a full-fledged application or game using GPL for the core logic is ok - my problems always come when some utility code is licensed too strictly which then prevents its use, not because of conflicting commercial interests but because of licensing details that are ultimately irrelevant, except for the lawyers.

A good example would be the Timidity++ music player. The sole reason why this couldn't be integrated properly before 2018 was the license - this thing is licensed like an application, not like a utility.
ketmar wrote: 100% is more than enough.
No, I mean 200% and I stand by it. You not only have to make sure that everything matches up, you also have to double check and triple check that you jumped through every single hoop that got put up to satisfy some of those people - and if you don't they start a shitstorm. Been there, seen that.
Last edited by Graf Zahl on Thu Jan 02, 2020 7:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ketmar
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: GPL distribution requirements and Linux

Post by ketmar »

one last note: there is a reason to choose GPL even for libraries. yes, because we *want* to "taint" all software that is using it with GPL. again, just as planned.
User avatar
Rachael
Posts: 13530
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her
Contact:

Re: GPL distribution requirements and Linux

Post by Rachael »

ketmar wrote:for my whole life (ok, for 20+ years of using GNU/Linux and FOSS) i had precisely zero problems with GPL, both as a developer, and as a user. the whole design of GPL is meant to damage those who want to take away some basic rights GPL is protecting. if one don't want to do that -- GPL poses zero problems.
Zero problems, eh? You must not have worked with GPL code that much, or if you have, you haven't had to mix in other people's code which may have carried with it varied licenses, some of which may have been mutually incompatible.

And don't think for a moment that your code hasn't ever been stolen. If the thief doesn't disclose the source, and it doesn't produce predictable results (ie a standard algorithm, ie compression), it's nearly impossible to check whether your code exists in someone else's project.

Let's not forget, also: a lot of corporations are moving to cloud-hosted applications - and the GPL doesn't protect against that. They don't have to disclose the source for what they merely run on their servers.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49056
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: GPL distribution requirements and Linux

Post by Graf Zahl »

ketmar wrote:one last note: there is a reason to choose GPL even for libraries. yes, because we *want* to "taint" all software that is using it with GPL. again, just as planned.
If you consider that "just as planned", count me out. I never would help a project that works like that.
But here's the funny thing: I only see that attitude in die-hard Linuxers, people who don't seem to think about other platforms and that they cannot play by the same rules and that sometimes even *using* the software is a no-go. Especially in an age as now where so much computing moves to smartphones - such libraries are worthless in such environments. Yeah, just as planned...
User avatar
ketmar
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: GPL distribution requirements and Linux

Post by ketmar »

>If you consider that "just as planned", count me out.
yeah, that's why we have alot of different licenses, i guess. because i will not actively contribute to non-GPL project, for example.

>or if you have, you haven't had to mix in other people's code which may have carried
>with it varied licenses, some of which may have been mutually incompatible.

yep, i respect authors' wishes and intents, and i won't use the code that is incompatible with GPL.

>And don't think for a moment that your code hasn't ever been stolen.
it is not about some magic "sphere of stealing protection", it is about *declarations*. if somebody want to steal my code, they will do it regardless of any license. what i am doing with GPL is saying "no, i absolutely against it. don't even dare to think that i am in any way agreed." it is up to other people to comply with it, i cannot enforce it in any way. but i believe that i have to make it clear, and with GPL it is as clear as i can make it.
User avatar
Chris
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 12:07 am
Graphics Processor: ATI/AMD with Vulkan/Metal Support

Re: GPL distribution requirements and Linux

Post by Chris »

Graf Zahl wrote:That's always the problem with an idealistic ideology. The desired goal is constantly at odds with real life demands.
I can't disagree, but I think that's a natural consequence of having diametrically opposed ideologies hitting against each other. The GNU and FSF (and by extension GPL) was a response to the growing practice of closed proprietary software inhibiting a person from using their own system as they needed, and software-as-a-service aiming to take away ownership rights of the software people pay for. When you have an extreme on one side for companies trying to take away ownership and personal control over what you use, it's only logical you'd get the other extreme of everything you use needing to be open and sharable. Neither would be good on the large scale, but to have a workable middle ground, an extreme must be balanced by its opposite. If the GNU/GPL and free-software movement had never caught on like it did, I worry what the state of software would be today (as it is, I feel the state of software is too far to the corporate lack-of-personal-control side, but it could be much worse if no one tried to counter it).
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49056
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: GPL distribution requirements and Linux

Post by Graf Zahl »

ketmar wrote:>If you consider that "just as planned", count me out.
yeah, that's why we have alot of different licenses, i guess. because i will not actively contribute to non-GPL project, for example.
I see it a bit more balanced. I wouldn't contribute to software whose license is at odds with its stated intent. The intent of a library, for example, is to help other save work. But when that library comes with unacceptable strings attached - be that GPL or some ridiculous commercially motivated restrictions (a shining example of this is the UnRAR license) - I'll try to make do without the library.

Here's another example: Build engines will never be able to implement good texture upscaling, because the only viable library for that is licensed under the full GPL and thus useless. Here ideology trumped over utility.
Locked

Return to “Off-Topic”