C++11 & The Long-Term Viability Of GCC Is Questioned

[XorEaxEax]

We have projects like LLVM, FreeBSD, LAPACK to name a few which do not have a GPL license have also enjoyed contributions from corporations (only no one forces them to do this).

Of course there are companies contributing back code even if they don't have to, particularly in areas where there is little reason to compete or with select contributions which offer no competitive value (Google would be the exception here, they readily open source code which by all accounts could be considered competitive advantages if kept to themselves, but they are hardly the norm (unfortunately) ).

Linking with libraries like GSL, which provide very basic numerical routines, then imposes the entirety of GPL on me. That is crazy and this is what permissive license advocates are really complaining about.

You choose to use this library, it's not imposed upon you. You may argue that the author of library X could have chosen a better licence for his/her work as it is of a component type, but that is not a problem of the licence itself, the author chose this licence.

GPL makes perfect sense in a ton of settings, even by your own admission. So obviously it's not the licence that is any problem, it's that it has been used for a particular type of code which in your opinion should not have been licenced as GPL, but rather LGPL or something more permissive.

Now why your preference should hold sway over this authors licence choice and allow you to call his/her choice crazy, that is another discussion I'm sure, and one where I don't agree with you.

But obviously there's nothing wrong with the GPL licence, as you have no problem with it being used under certain circumstances which are according to your preferences.

The GPL licence is just that, a licence, someone actively chooses it for his/her code. If that code is such that it will only be used as a small component then you may argue that the author who chose that licence for their code made a poor choice (much better than calling them crazy), but the GPL licence has no control over which type of code someone applies it upon.

No. Because of license incompatibilities.

Easily solved then, let's all use GPL, no more incompabilities for open source. Oh, that's not your preference? Well there you have it, different people have different licence preferences, I guess that means that, oh, shocker, we will have licence incompabilities!!! Yes, it would be easier if there was only one party to vote on come election, except maybe it's not such a good idea after all.

C'mon man, go look in the Phoronix archive. There was even one recently about some unusable CAD software.

I know, I was in that discussion. The reason there was an incompability is that the company in question which released the library did so under GPLv2 ONLY which prevented it to be used together with a GPLv3 licenced code project. I would have preferred that this company had released the code as LGPL or one of the permissive licences, as it was a library and in my preference libraries are a poor fit for GPL. At the very least I would have preferred that they chose to include the more or less standard 'or later' clause which would atleast have prevented this particular problem.

However this brings us back to the discussion above, it's nothing wrong with GPLvX, however we may find another licence type more preferential in regards to certain types of code. However this is at the end of the day a choice made by the code author/owner, and as we can see from the licence landscape most developers use GPL for 'full application'-style code and LGPL/permissive licencing for library/component code. So clearly their is an overall concensus in regards to where these licences best apply.

Which is again why attacking GPL makes no sense, it's a licence, one which even you as a permissive licence advocate admits has benefits. If people choose to use this for their code in situations where you or I may find it inappropriate is not a problem with the licence itself, and at the end of the day it's really not worth much of a discussion at all as it's someone else's code and they have every right to licence it as they please without having their choices described as crazy.

It's preposterous because you'll not find many proprietary licenses with such heavy-handed terms.

Oh please, have you read a proprietary software EULA? And how could you call this a preposterous demand? It's no more preposterous than saying you can have a binary under these EULA conditions if you pay me money.

[nslay]

Really? Of the top of my head I can think of Juniper's proprietary JunOS based upon FreeBSD but obviously in most cases we don't even know as they are after all 'proprietary', but we can look at Linux forks like that in Android (which now makes it fully back into mainline, something it hardly would had it not been for being licenced as GPL), it's not something particularly difficult for companies to do.

Of course, claiming that Android forks wouldn't make it back in the mainline had it not been GPL is complete speculation, especially with Google's track record in open source. We have projects like LLVM, FreeBSD, LAPACK to name a few which do not have a GPL license have also enjoyed contributions from corporations (only no one forces them to do this).

It's not unrelated if it links to it, beyond that GPL is seldom used for library/component code which is typically the type of code you would 'link' to, this is where LGPL or permissive licenses are primarily chosen. Standard GPL is most often used for complete solutions like full applications or other wholly self-sustained components.

If I write some computer vision software, for example, then I might use SVD and basic data structures. But these have little to do with my specific application. They are general purpose tools, not tools specific to computer vision. Linking with libraries like GSL, which provide very basic numerical routines, then imposes the entirety of GPL on me. That is crazy and this is what permissive license advocates are really complaining about. Not this other talking point of modifying complete solutions.

Because you say so?

No. Because of license incompatibilities. C'mon man, go look in the Phoronix archive. There was even one recently about some unusable CAD software.

You get to link against MS SDK for free because Windows is not for free and the resulting binary will only run on Windows, typically you even have to splash out for Visual Studio to effectively use said SDK's. Again, with GPL the 'price' is that you keep your code open, how can you say that is 'preposterous' while at the same time saying that charging money for code is not? The answer is that neither are preposterous.

It's preposterous because you'll not find many proprietary licenses with such heavy-handed terms. And yet, something as open as GPL has such terms and quite needlessly ... so much so the LGPL was created (again, we're talking about the complaints of permissive license advocates).

[XorEaxEax]

Even something like the FreeBSD kernel is extremely volatile.

Really? Of the top of my head I can think of Juniper's proprietary JunOS based upon FreeBSD but obviously in most cases we don't even know as they are after all 'proprietary', but we can look at Linux forks like that in Android (which now makes it fully back into mainline, something it hardly would had it not been for being licenced as GPL), it's not something particularly difficult for companies to do.

Of course it would be better if they didn't feel there was any need, but companies seldom want to give away an advantage to a competitor when nothing compels that competitor to do the same in return, however with GPL there is a legal basis for a share alike cooperation between companies.

The massive corporate supported development Linux enjoys is a testament to this being effective.

... and all unrelated code having nothing to do with the GPL'd work on account of linking.

It's not unrelated if it links to it, beyond that GPL is seldom used for library/component code which is typically the type of code you would 'link' to, this is where LGPL or permissive licenses are primarily chosen. Standard GPL is most often used for complete solutions like full applications or other wholly self-sustained components.

And it hurts open source software too.

Because you say so?

I'm sorry you feel that way. In my opinion, free open source software should not force its ideology on other works.

It doesn't, you choose to use 'foss' in your projects, just like you choose to use proprietary software or not, how can you say one is wrong and the other is right? It makes no logical sense.

Well, I choose those permissive terms anyway.

Which is perfectly within your rights, just as it is in someone else's right to licence their code under GPL or keep it proprietary, or public domain.

This is likely worse than most proprietary licenses. For example, if I link with MS SDK, there are no such ludicrous terms. That's preposterous.

You get to link against MS SDK for free because Windows is not for free and the resulting binary will only run on Windows, typically you even have to splash out for Visual Studio to effectively use said SDK's. Again, with GPL the 'price' is that you keep your code open, how can you say that is 'preposterous' while at the same time saying that charging money for code is not? The answer is that neither are preposterous.

Of course, I can think of situations where I might use GPL. Let's say I wanted to sell some software. I could make a GPL version so that it gains widespread use and exposure in the community and then sell a proprietary-licensed version of it to interested companies that want accountability and support.

This is certainly an option, the x264 project does exactly that, a GPL licenced open source version for use with open source, a licence for proprietary use which you can buy. As the creator/owner of a piece of code you are free to licence it under any licence(s) or other conditions you please.

[nslay]

If they want to keep their enhancements as a competitive advantage (as is often the case with proprietary software as that is the only point real of being proprietary) they won't. And seriously with the tools at our disposal today it's not particularly hard to keep a separate out-of-tree fork unless the original project goes out of it's way to deliberately make it hard. And again as soon as there is no requirement to push enhancements back and there is even the smallest hint at a competitive advantage to be had by keeping enhancements to themselves, companies are usually very keen on doing so as it's in their dna as competitive entities.

I think you'd have to do an awful lot of work to add the kinds of features and enhancements that offer a competitive advantage over the open source software itself. But then, they're really selling their hard work in the end ... I mean, who would buy software based on open source software that kinda does a little extra? No no ... it'd have to be a lot of non-trivial work to convince users to actually buy that. And to be honest, I'm OK with that from that perspective ...

Besides, do you have any examples? I'm not seeing this in practice. There are several examples of companies contributing source code back to permissive software projects and I can't think of any examples where permissive software was modified and leveraged with competitive features. And I think it's a lot harder to maintain out-of-tree forks of non-trivial open source software ... tools or not. Even something like the FreeBSD kernel is extremely volatile.

It's bad for developer who wants to develop proprietary code using GPL licenced code, it's a great licence for developers who want to benefit from any enhancements made to their code.

GPL is not for proprietary code as it exists entirely to keep the source code in all it's derivative forms open, as such it's an anti-thesis to proprietary code.


No you don't have to, you choose to. Just like the creator of that GPL licenced code chose to licence it as GPL, because he/she likely wanted any modifications made to the code made available to them.

... and all unrelated code having nothing to do with the GPL'd work on account of linking.

And it hurts open source software too.

And how you can complain about the existance of open source code available under a licence you don't prefer as tragic, while defending proprietary code (which isn't available as open source at all) just reeks of bullshit.

I'm sorry you feel that way. In my opinion, free open source software should not force its ideology on other works. This isn't kindergarten ... you don't have to share your modifications. Well, I choose those permissive terms anyway.

The discussion here is about the 'double morale' exposed in many BSD zealots who wants to frame proprietary as something good (keeping it closed is their right!!) while trying to frame GPL as something bad (as if it was somehow not a right to require derivates to remain open source!?!?).

But GPL does more than just keep derivatives open source. It extends its terms into even unrelated source simply through linking. As if using something so fundamental as SVD (GSL) or basic data structures (glib) really warrants re-licensing an entire project as GPL on account of linking. This is likely worse than most proprietary licenses. For example, if I link with MS SDK, there are no such ludicrous terms. That's preposterous.

Nobody is complaining about LGPL (well I'm not), for example, because it doesn't have such heavy-handed terms.

Of course, I can think of situations where I might use GPL. Let's say I wanted to sell some software. I could make a GPL version so that it gains widespread use and exposure in the community and then sell a proprietary-licensed version of it to interested companies that want accountability and support.

[XorEaxEax]

Yeah, except that most companies would prefer to continue to pull updates from open source. They'd have to merge those changes at every update either way they do it ... that's not very practical. Unless their work must be kept secret, I'd imagine they'd try to push their changes back to open source.

If they want to keep their enhancements as a competitive advantage (as is often the case with proprietary software as that is the only point real of being proprietary) they won't. And seriously with the tools at our disposal today it's not particularly hard to keep a separate out-of-tree fork unless the original project goes out of it's way to deliberately make it hard. And again as soon as there is no requirement to push enhancements back and there is even the smallest hint at a competitive advantage to be had by keeping enhancements to themselves, companies are usually very keen on doing so as it's in their dna as competitive entities.

It's bad for developers though,

It's bad for developer who wants to develop proprietary code using GPL licenced code, it's a great licence for developers who want to benefit from any enhancements made to their code.

GPL is not for proprietary code as it exists entirely to keep the source code in all it's derivative forms open, as such it's an anti-thesis to proprietary code.

I have a choice not to link with GPL software and either have to find more permissive software, or write my own (and writing your own when a solution already exists is a tragedy!).

No you don't have to, you choose to. Just like the creator of that GPL licenced code chose to licence it as GPL, because he/she likely wanted any modifications made to the code made available to them.

And how you can complain about the existance of open source code available under a licence you don't prefer as tragic, while defending proprietary code (which isn't available as open source at all) just reeks of bullshit.

I would rather not surrender my right to license choice.

You don't, you have the right to licence your code any way you want, however when you want to use someone else's code you are subject to their conditions. Just like with proprietary code (which you have no problem with), proprietary code typically says you can have a binary in return for monetary compensation. GPL says you can have source code in return for source code.

You're a Linux/GPL/freetard zealot. You're probably just a luser and don't write software or have any experience with the license problems from either an open source or corporate point of view.

On the contrary, I defend the right of permissive, copyleft licences AND proprietary code as I see that as a fundamental right of the programmer/owner of the code to choose for themselves. However what I often see is that of BSD zealots defending proprietary code while attacking GPL licenced code. That makes absolutely no sense.

Hey, the companies have the right to choose how their intellectual property is to be used. They pay the software developers to write the code. It is intellectual property of the company and not the developers.

And programmers have the right to choose how their code is to be used. They write it, and if they want any modifications to the code be made available then that is their right. WTF is your point here?

The discussion here is about the 'double morale' exposed in many BSD zealots who wants to frame proprietary as something good (keeping it closed is their right!!) while trying to frame GPL as something bad (as if it was somehow not a right to require derivates to remain open source!?!?).

[brosis]

As I said, if proprietary software incorporates permissive software, said permissive software is still open source. It does not amount to fascism or any of the non-sense above.

Fascism is extreme form of private property, where the state is the corporation.

If proprietary software incorporates software with permissive license, it can either link to it dynamically or include it statically, ie build on top of it. LGPL covers the first case, BSD the both of them, so the difference is that GPL restricts mix of proprietary and opensource which is a good thing.

I mean, there are several examples of this. Matlab uses LAPACK for example. LAPACK is still actively maintained and open source.

Matlab is not opensource, so what is your point and why should some library interest me? Matlab is free to modify LAPACK heavily, to the cases where using the original LAPACK is barely not interesting for practical cases. In this case the only group who would seek interest in LAPACK would be students.
So you have this wonderful split:
Crappy opensource software and working proprietary software. This is what you get with BSD.
With GPL you would get working opensource software, because Matlab would be obligated to submit the changes back.

Can you provide an example? You can't patent an algorithm that has already been publicly disclosed ... this a bunch of hot air. However, if an open source developer (regardless of license) implement a patented algorithm without the consent of the patent owner, even this developer would be in a great deal trouble.

Siri, which was supposed to be available on wide range of platforms.
LAPACK, which is (un)dead due to a shitload of proprietary versions, talk about reinventing bicycles: MKL, ACML, Sun Performance Library, LAPACK by NAG, MLIB.

I think software patents are annoying as much as anyone else, but that's just how it is. Use Google Patents to check first.

Software patents are nothing different, but another way to extent proprietary behavior on information. Actually, they are good ... if they would last tops 5 years AND if patenting something trivial would be impossible.

It would be impractical for the company to, "make it their own," unless some secrets were at stake.

Secrets, secrets, everyone has a secret. Like babies - one keeps something secret, everybody starts to do the same.
If it would be illegal to produce "secrets" by means of license, no one would need to have any secrets. Just patent stuff away (and this also means - document it) for five years max, work hard on open implementation, collect money for the work and move on.

Besides, what do they gain by making open source software "their own?" From what I can tell, companies would rather pull updates from the open source project and submit their changes back. This is just practicality. Who would want to spend time merging private changes back into every update?

Linux kernel, look it up, great example.
Everybody profits from working together instead of building clones of clones and spending equal effort on maintenance, PLUS "intellectual protection", which drains resources and customer wallet and rights.

And the EULA of the proprietary software does not affect the permissive software used in the proprietary software. The permissive software remains open source and unencumbered.

BSD yes, after the code is cloned they are not obligated to give a damn about its parent.

If you're worried about a corporation profiting off your work and this really bothers you, then maybe the GPL is right for you. Unlike you, I'm not a zealot.

Oh, you are a zealot, your are a proprietary zealot - because you are throwing labels before anyone else. Somebody who is not a zealot, does not liter around with stereotypes.

I don't give a damn likewise of someone earning profit. I have a problem only when corporation collect my money and throw me an non-exclusive non-transferable personal right to use the blob for the specified task as an exchange. I did not offer them non-exclusive non-transferable right to use a sum of money for sort period, I gave them real thing, this is what I expect in exchange.
The other problem is that they literally crap on any of my rights and favor to form either monopoly or cartel, so no one can evade their taxes.

I prefer to pay directly to programmers for their work. Not for limited right to use, but for real work, and this is how stuff should be done.

However, more often than not, proprietary software is non-trivial (otherwise, who would buy it?) and just makes use of simple algorithms (e.g. like SVD). I wouldn't consider using, for example, SVD, worthy of releasing the entire work as open source GPL software. Would you?

Yeah, they want that "exclusivity", so you have proven my point above of why BSD licensed software will stay in its infant stage, whilst spawning a milliard of proprietary clones.
Btw, the SVD is not patented, so I see not problem why the software should not be released as GPL.

If you want your software to be widely adopted by the community (corporate, open source, government, etc...), a permissive license is a good way to go. Otherwise, it will likely rot in the open like some of the FSF software now (because many cannot use it due to its restrictions).

Like I said, I don't care about shitty fascist corporations, who want everything but give a addictive crap in return.
The good corporations have no problem adopting GPL and especially government favours GPL over any license, because:
a) proprietary counterparts cost more in long term
b) proprietary counterparts are insecure
c) government usually obligates any proprietary developer to open up the entire source due to security restrictions. GPL does not need this.
d) BSD or GPL for government applications are equally acceptable licenses. The only difference is that BSD can be taken and "misused" in any way, which does not interest government, if a,b,c criteria are met.

[nslay]

Then let me point you at the problem. Define the freedom:
a) Ability to do anything
b) Ability to do anything that does persist

In my opinion, if something is truly free, the freedom to remove freedom should be banned. Like fascism is banned in all freedom countries, because freedom to choose fascism will inevitably lead to loose of freedom.
Hence: You are free to do anything except removing freedom. Thats the GPL.
The BSD is you are free to do anything. Thats anarchy, its not freedom. Anarchies do not last long, they almost instantly fall into martial law of most potent, which is not freedom.

We can project it into code:
GPL is "you are free to walk into any memory address except walking into others memory address to sabotage their freedom of movement"
BSD is "you are free to walk into any memory address". Several nanoseconds later, all memory address is occupied by some zombie process and there is no freedom of movement in system.

As I said, if proprietary software incorporates permissive software, said permissive software is still open source. It does not amount to fascism or any of the non-sense above.

I mean, there are several examples of this. Matlab uses LAPACK for example. LAPACK is still actively maintained and open source.

Yes, this is true. They like to produce closed source anti-freedom software, that incorporates A LOT of permissive software. They like it even better, if they can patent this software or otherwise make it exclusive to them. GPL does not deal with slavers, that's the point. But otherwise, no one is limited or dictated of the ways to monetize the software in GPL.

Can you provide an example? You can't patent an algorithm that has already been publicly disclosed ... this a bunch of hot air. However, if an open source developer (regardless of license) implement a patented algorithm without the consent of the patent owner, even this developer would be in a great deal trouble.

I think software patents are annoying as much as anyone else, but that's just how it is. Use Google Patents to check first.

Furthermore, much of the software used in proprietary software is non-trivial. It would be impractical for the company to, "make it their own," unless some secrets were at stake. Besides, what do they gain by making open source software "their own?" From what I can tell, companies would rather pull updates from the open source project and submit their changes back. This is just practicality. Who would want to spend time merging private changes back into every update?

Also the "private modifications" you talk about are garbage, because your very own EULA imposes much much more restrictions than GPL does. And if you don't want to opensource your "private work", keep it to yourself, lock it up, let it rot. You know, its a general rule of information, information is multiplied via reusal, so go ahead, keep it private.

And the EULA of the proprietary software does not affect the permissive software used in the proprietary software. The permissive software remains open source and unencumbered.

And if you want to make use of someone's "sweat", but refuse to reveal your "modifications", then you are better off with BSD license. Nothing wrong with that, just more restrictive software taking money away from uninformed customers and polluting the climate with own useless noise.

If you're worried about a corporation profiting off your work and this really bothers you, then maybe the GPL is right for you. Unlike you, I'm not a zealot.

However, more often than not, proprietary software is non-trivial (otherwise, who would buy it?) and just makes use of simple algorithms (e.g. like SVD). I wouldn't consider using, for example, SVD, worthy of releasing the entire work as open source GPL software. Would you?

If you want your software to be widely adopted by the community (corporate, open source, government, etc...), a permissive license is a good way to go. Otherwise, it will likely rot in the open like some of the FSF software now (because many cannot use it due to its restrictions).

[brosis]

Freedom extends to everyone (including companies) and every use case. I don't see the problem.

Then let me point you at the problem. Define the freedom:
a) Ability to do anything
b) Ability to do anything that does persist

In my opinion, if something is truly free, the freedom to remove freedom should be banned. Like fascism is banned in all freedom countries, because freedom to choose fascism will inevitably lead to loose of freedom.
Hence: You are free to do anything except removing freedom. Thats the GPL.
The BSD is you are free to do anything. Thats anarchy, its not freedom. Anarchies do not last long, they almost instantly fall into martial law of most potent, which is not freedom.

We can project it into code:
GPL is "you are free to walk into any memory address except walking into others memory address to sabotage their freedom of movement"
BSD is "you are free to walk into any memory address". Several nanoseconds later, all memory address is occupied by some zombie process and there is no freedom of movement in system.

If a company or independent software developer(s) decides to incorporate permissive software into a proprietary product, it does not make that permissive software any less open than it was to begin with. If they want to make their own private modifications to it, then they are free to do so by their own sweat. Why must we force them to produce their modifications and why is this considered protection when the original work is still open source (EDIT: Oh and let's not forget that we'll force them to produce their source code)?

Yes, this is true. They like to produce closed source anti-freedom software, that incorporates A LOT of permissive software. They like it even better, if they can patent this software or otherwise make it exclusive to them. GPL does not deal with slavers, that's the point. But otherwise, no one is limited or dictated of the ways to monetize the software in GPL.

Also the "private modifications" you talk about are garbage, because your very own EULA imposes much much more restrictions than GPL does. And if you don't want to opensource your "private work", keep it to yourself, lock it up, let it rot. You know, its a general rule of information, information is multiplied via reusal, so go ahead, keep it private.

And if you want to make use of someone's "sweat", but refuse to reveal your "modifications", then you are better off with BSD license. Nothing wrong with that, just more restrictive software taking money away from uninformed customers and polluting the climate with own useless noise.

[nslay]

So you are proprietary developer, because BSD is nonfree anarchy license with "freedom" advertized but not protected. Your guess is right, loving freedom I am ok to be called a freetard. Its much better than being a whore like you, who repeatedly codes his own problems.

Freedom extends to everyone (including companies) and every use case. I don't see the problem.

If a company or independent software developer(s) decides to incorporate permissive software into a proprietary product, it does not make that permissive software any less open than it was to begin with. If they want to make their own private modifications to it, then they are free to do so by their own sweat. Why must we force them to produce their modifications and why is this considered protection when the original work is still open source (EDIT: Oh and let's not forget that we'll force them to produce their source code)?

[brosis]

I'm both (and I prefer BSDL). You're probably also a luser too (my guess is that most freetards are). Write some software and gain a new perspective.

So you are proprietary developer, because BSD is nonfree anarchy license with "freedom" advertized but not protected. Your guess is right, loving freedom I am ok to be called a freetard. Its much better than being a whore like you, who repeatedly codes his own problems.


Anyways, it astonishing to find how much dirt has exposed itself recently all of the sudden:
* the BSDM whores, who say freedom but not mean it and are happy to thrust a knife in its ex-friend GPL back
* the proprietary whores, with all sorts of "you owe us all" BS

Imps go rage. Must be Linux gaining popularity on the desktop. Good, its a good day for house cleaning.