Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LLVM Clang 14 Lands An "Amazing" Performance Optimization

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • acobar
    replied
    Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
    The GPL does not just give freedom, it protects freedom for everyone, so that your code is a gift that keeps on giving.
    This!

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by cl333r View Post
    a) if you want to be taken seriously write less blabber.
    b) bother not skipping words like "tend"
    c) Your example doesn't prove or disprove what I said because of b)
    I did not skip the word tend. Winehq is a good example with the well written public history of getting burnt.

    open source from the start<< Libreoffice today first started as closed source star office.
    https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html
    That appears in the world as LGPL license from sun. Progresses to Apache license and MPL license. Yes the apache license openoffice end up burn by the copyleft license libreoffice and the fact that the companies taking and using the apache license openoffice don't end up giving back. Openoffice use to get a lot of submitted code when they were LGPL license.

    They tend to a copyleft license not GPL in general. Also depend on the companies business dealing and how they have been burnt with licensing a company that has never released open source before might decide to go straight up copyleft.

    The major deciding force is how much a company has been burnt by morally inferior companies not that they are long term open source companies.

    There are example after example here. There is a tendency to copyleft licenses. Lot of market its only the copyleft licensed open source projects that remain with healthy development.

    cl333r companies like redhat that don't have fixed tend direct is very common in the open source world. The choice between copyleft and non copyleft licensing with the majority of long term open source supporting companies is more based on the market the open source project will be going into.

    Linux graphics drivers in the kernel lot of people would think are GPLv2 when in reality they are MIT license because for that market this makes more sense so the code can be shared with freebsd and others.

    cl333r long term open source companies are not black or white on licensing lots of shades of grey with license selection based on market/users/competition.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alexmitter
    replied
    Every type of company beside the large multinational titans prefer the GPL over MIT/Apache/etc as they can be sure that no matter who benefits from the money they invested in GPL code, they themself will always benefit back from it.

    The GPL does not just give freedom, it protects freedom for everyone, so that your code is a gift that keeps on giving.

    Leave a comment:


  • cl333r
    replied
    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
    I am making a distinguishment between companies (i.e. Redhat) and organizations/communities (i.e. Linux).
    Nah, I'm not going down this rabbit hole, I'm done with the what is "is" debate for today.

    Leave a comment:


  • cl333r
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
    .
    a) if you want to be taken seriously write less blabber.
    b) bother not skipping words like "tend"
    c) Your example doesn't prove or disprove what I said because of b)

    Leave a comment:


  • cl333r
    replied
    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post

    But I would argue that even this is a stretch, note that I am making a distinguishment between companies (i.e. Redhat) and organizations/communities (i.e. Linux). I mean back then, it was actually even worse for companies doing open source (Redhat was a massive standout).
    What do you mean by "worse"? Legally? Financially? Choice wise not enough software?

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
    Uh I don't know what world you are living in but where I have worked the recommendation from legal for all open source work is Apache (sometimes BSD/MIT), not GPL2/GPL3. GPL is much more legally complicated than Apache for a company.
    Willing is most likely the wrong word. It should will share source code.

    Legal departments in many companies are more willing to sign off for their staff working on copyleft projects sharing their work out side the company than BSD or Apache ones.

    Please read this line more carefully. This was not saying that you get recommend to use from legal. This is about the ability to share the work outside the company so work cooperatively.

    Yes a legal department from a morally inferior company will be saying license all your work as Apache/BSD/MIT with the pure plan of some point in the future pulling that code back in extend it internally and beating the living heck out their competition by having advantage. Of course this does not always go to plan as another morally inferior company can beat them to the punch line. Copyleft licenses most of them kill of this behavour.

    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
    GPL might be the default for companies that work on already preexisting GPL software (i.e. redhat with Linux) but as far as I can tell, when we are dealing with big companies they almost always pick Apache/MIT/BSD (usually preferring Apache due to its patent clause). There are exceptions even wrt to Redhat, i.e. pipewire (the new audio/video stack being developed there) is MIT licensed https://github.com/PipeWire/pipewire
    Reality here Redhat before IBM commonly licenses stuff as MIT license and has done from day one. But if Redhat has another company that is morally inferior and starts using a project without giving back Redhat before IBM would re-license as GPL or LGPL because of the morally inferiors actions of not working cooperatively.

    IBM has also been the same where they will use a MIT license until they have problems from someone in the market of that product being morally inferior.

    Originally posted by cl333r View Post
    Yeah, I think it's common sense to assume that companies that were open source from the start will tend to prefer GPL, the rest - Apache/MIT/BSD.
    This is wrong. Take wine project it starts as bsd like license then moves X11 license then moved to LGPL yes this is mentioned in their history https://wiki.winehq.org/Wine_History. Most open source companies start with BSD/MIT/X11 and Apache licenses once burnt by morally inferior company taking their work extending it and starting up in direct competition and end up moving to a copyleft license.

    The tendency of long term open source companies to develop a preference for copyleft licenses are a direct effect of the morally inferior companies actions in the majority of cases.

    Why Redhat uses MIT licenses sometimes and why that user LGPL and GPL licenses others is explained by understand what market that software is going into and what kind of companies are in that market. Remember Redhat if they see a morally inferiors causing too many problems they can simply re-license to LGPL a MIT project.

    Also in market where there are not morally inferiors looking to ruin you using MIT/BSD ....non copyleft can be a good way to get simply past legal departments. Of course once everyone has made the project part of their core workflow then change to LGPL. Yes Redhat and others have done this stunt over 100 times over the last decade perfectly successfully. Do I class this as morally questionable yes I do but it does work. So there are multi levels of bait and switch games in play.

    Morally inferiors who will take other peoples work extend that work hidden from the public and use that extended work as closed source compete with the original project is the biggest driving force of the usage of copyleft licenses.

    Yes it really hard at times to tell if you are working in a morally superior company or a morally inferior company or a company that will be morally superior/morally inferior on a case by case base. Yes the advice you can be getting from the legal departments of all these types companies can be absolutely identical at first.

    Choosing right license for your project is not simple. Because humans running companies are not simple and humans are not all the same level of morality.

    mdedetrich and cl333r; I have being around open source for over 20 years and I have watched all these different behaviours happen and I have no reason to believe they will magically stop any time soon. So all I can say is we have to except that we have morally inferiors in the open source world and this does have side effects on licensing that creates bias in the copyleft direction for long term open source companies. This is just how the world is and most likely always will be as long as companies/humans are around wanting to make profit by defeating their competitors..

    Some ways you could say new people to open source start out optimistic and go morally idealist licenses only to be progressively burnt by the morally inferiors and one day that optimistic world view disappears replaced from a view that copyleft licences are a good idea so they don't have to put up with as many morally inferiors..

    Leave a comment:


  • mdedetrich
    replied
    Originally posted by cl333r View Post

    Yeah, I think it's common sense to assume that companies that were open source from the start will tend to prefer GPL, the rest - Apache/MIT/BSD.
    But I would argue that even this is a stretch, note that I am making a distinguishment between companies (i.e. Redhat) and organizations/communities (i.e. Linux). I mean back then, it was actually even worse for companies doing open source (Redhat was a massive standout).

    Leave a comment:


  • cl333r
    replied
    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post

    Uh I don't know what world you are living in but where I have worked the recommendation from legal for all open source work is Apache (sometimes BSD/MIT), not GPL2/GPL3. GPL is much more legally complicated than Apache for a company.

    GPL might be the default for companies that work on already preexisting GPL software (i.e. redhat with Linux) but as far as I can tell, when we are dealing with big companies they almost always pick Apache/MIT/BSD (usually preferring Apache due to its patent clause). There are exceptions even wrt to Redhat, i.e. pipewire (the new audio/video stack being developed there) is MIT licensed https://github.com/PipeWire/pipewire
    Yeah, I think it's common sense to assume that companies that were open source from the start will tend to prefer GPL, the rest - Apache/MIT/BSD.

    Leave a comment:


  • mdedetrich
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

    Legal departments in many companies are more willing to sign off for their staff working on copyleft projects sharing their work out side the company than BSD or Apache ones. So yes non-copyleft might be able to claim to be more morally superior but the problem here is most companies we need to pay developer time are not morally superior. Also not all markets are filled with the same mix of companies either.
    Uh I don't know what world you are living in but where I have worked the recommendation from legal for all open source work is Apache (sometimes BSD/MIT), not GPL2/GPL3. GPL is much more legally complicated than Apache for a company.

    GPL might be the default for companies that work on already preexisting GPL software (i.e. redhat with Linux) but as far as I can tell, when we are dealing with big companies they almost always pick Apache/MIT/BSD (usually preferring Apache due to its patent clause). There are exceptions even wrt to Redhat, i.e. pipewire (the new audio/video stack being developed there) is MIT licensed https://github.com/PipeWire/pipewire
    Last edited by mdedetrich; 07 December 2021, 04:43 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X