OpenBSD Founder Calling For LLVM To Face A Cataclysm Over Its Re-Licensing

[Passso]

GPL has been an absolute disaster for most developers and its bad for most users. If I want to use a GPL library in my own code and protect my own code and earn a little bit of money I can't, but if multi billion corporations like facebook or Amazon want to deploy and modify code across tens of thousands of servers, they can for free, without having to give anything back. Linux has been great for the big corporations. Microsoft and Apple totally dominate personal desktops and laptops and while Android has the bulk of the phone market its used in a form which helps maintain vast corporate power for Google, Samsung LG,etc.

GPL is not freedom. It dictates exactly the terms under which you must release your software. Its very much Communist style freedom. The Soviet Union was wonderful free as long as you totally agreed with Joseph Stalin on absolutely everything, similarly the GPL3 is a great licence as long as you agree with every word and don't want to add a single clause to it.

I intend to open source some of my software for what its worth, I will release it without restriction. I will resist the temptation to forbid users from mixing it with GPL code. Software that I don't want to share I won't open source. GPL is a pathetic childish attempt to have your cake and eat it. To pretend to give something away but then control its use for eternity or at least till the copy right runs out.

OMG, how can EVERY sentence of this bullshit can be totally wrong and stupid. Read GPL before writing the exact opposite of what it is : GPL force to share in return your own code when you used some GPLed code.

Anyway, considering your level of knowledge and trollism I cannot fight. You win, and the moron who liked your post desserves a dumb award too.

Kiss.

[bridgman]

OMG, how can EVERY sentence of this bullshit can be totally wrong and stupid. Read GPL before writing the exact opposite of what it is : GPL force to share in return your own code when you used some GPLed code.

Actually the key concern that Rich Oliver identified was described correctly:

If I want to use a GPL library in my own code and protect my own code and earn a little bit of money I can't, but if multi billion corporations like facebook or Amazon want to deploy and modify code across tens of thousands of servers, they can for free, without having to give anything back.

Modifying and using GPL-licensed code on a public-facing server has always been allowed (since running the software internally does not count as distribution), but it was a relatively small issue until fairly recently. The Affero variants of the license address this, but they are less commonly seen AFAIK.

Similarly, if the library were LGPL-licensed rather than GPL-licensed then the poster's own code would not need to be made available, but that is not the scenario that was described.

[fuzz]

It's every user's right to have the ability to know how their software works. That's why the GPL exists.

[aht0]

It's every user's right to have the ability to know how their software works. That's why the GPL exists.

The actual percentage of users reading the source code before using the software would be what exactly? 0,0001%? Crushing majority are not even capable for the feat.. They are simply counting on the hope that someone more capable does read the source and find it trustworthy..

[fuzz]

The actual percentage of users reading the source code before using the software would be what exactly? 0,0001%? Crushing majority are not even capable for the feat.. They are simply counting on the hope that someone more capable does read the source and find it trustworthy..

I've never said otherwise. But people still have rights.

[chithanh]

Actually the key concern that Rich Oliver identified was described correctly:

This concern applies double standards. Amazon is free to run modified GPL code on their servers without having to share it with anyone. Rich Oliver can also combine GPL code with his own, and run it on his servers.

GPL also doesn't preclude anyone from earning money with the code, just the traditional business model of selling software licenses is not working any more. Plenty of companies have demonstrated that selling services (including SaaS where you can modify GPL code and run it for customers without ever having to disclose the source code) works perfectly well for them.

The actual percentage of users reading the source code before using the software would be what exactly? 0,0001%? Crushing majority are not even capable for the feat.. They are simply counting on the hope that someone more capable does read the source and find it trustworthy..

The users exercise collective control over the program. Access to the source code is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for this. And even if some individual or organization cannot work on the code themselves, they can hire someone who does.

[aht0]

This concern applies double standards. Amazon is free to run modified GPL code on their servers without having to share it with anyone. Rich Oliver can also combine GPL code with his own, and run it on his servers.

The users exercise collective control over the program. Access to the source code is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for this. And even if some individual or organization cannot work on the code themselves, they can hire someone who does.

[/QUOTE]
I keep remembering my childhood when Soviets practiced "collective control", which meant that nobody really owned nothing and everybody stole whatever they could.. It's perhaps my upbringing which makes me resistant to the GPL. And even back then, there were people who were "more equal than others" (drawing parallels with Party and Amazon) who played by their own rules.

I've never said otherwise. But people still have rights.

Sorry, but this means exactly nothing. Nothing more than imagined mental picture of what should and what should not be, based on one's upbringing and moral values. Which differ a lot.

[chithanh]

aht0
Stallman and the FSF even explicitly mentioned the Soviet Union in their philosophy statements, and explained why they need a license that ensures that nobody can stop free sharing of code, or use that code to subjugate other users by denying them the four freedoms (e.g. giving them only the binary code).

All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it from hand to hand as samizdat. There is of course a difference: the motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us, not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html

[bridgman]

This concern applies double standards. Amazon is free to run modified GPL code on their servers without having to share it with anyone. Rich Oliver can also combine GPL code with his own, and run it on his servers.

His point was that an SaaS business model was more accessible to large companies than to individual small developers, who were more likely to sell/license their code. That obviously changes a bit as a consequence of cloud services like AWS, but there is still a credibility/trust issue for small developers since it probably appears more likely to potential customers that the chance of stopping hosting without warning is higher with an individual than with a large company.

Buying/licensing SW from a small developer bypasses that concern to a large extent since the software runs on the customer's hardware, unless the domain is one where ongoing enhancements are essential to continued useability.

[Guest]

This makes no sense, they're using BSD-like licensing now. They are still very relevant. For what it's worth, they aren't corporate whores.

It's not as relevant as it would be with more restrictive license. OS X steals from BSD and makes it irrelevant on desktop.