Speaking out against the GPL August 30, 2004 10:45 PM Subscribe
"Thank you for demonstrating why I speak out against the GPL and in favour of BSD at every opportunity"Heh... we can already see you'll make the opportunity on the mefi homepage.
--Reklaw
I'm sorry to hear that dhoyt :(
It'll help if you're a dork. There's this classical argument in open source around the GPL and the BSD.
The BSD licences allow the people to do anything with the code provided they keep attribution. They can sell binaries and they don't have to share the source code. The GPL licence doesn't allow everything to happen; you get the source and you have to offer it to those who get the binaries.
So there are parallels to arguments on whether freedom is through allowing people to do anything, or by putting limits on them for the good of society.
The technicalities of the licences aren't why I started this thread though. It's that reklaw has a weak thread starter as his podium to rant about his prefered software licencing model.
posted by holloway at 11:42 PM on August 30, 2004
It'll help if you're a dork. There's this classical argument in open source around the GPL and the BSD.
The BSD licences allow the people to do anything with the code provided they keep attribution. They can sell binaries and they don't have to share the source code. The GPL licence doesn't allow everything to happen; you get the source and you have to offer it to those who get the binaries.
So there are parallels to arguments on whether freedom is through allowing people to do anything, or by putting limits on them for the good of society.
The technicalities of the licences aren't why I started this thread though. It's that reklaw has a weak thread starter as his podium to rant about his prefered software licencing model.
posted by holloway at 11:42 PM on August 30, 2004
Surely the good people of Portugal don't care one bit.
posted by crunchland at 11:47 PM on August 30, 2004
posted by crunchland at 11:47 PM on August 30, 2004
If I were from Portugal, I don't think I'd care.
I'd be too busy gaily drinking mixed drinks in the glow of the afternoon sun.
posted by kaibutsu at 11:56 PM on August 30, 2004
I'd be too busy gaily drinking mixed drinks in the glow of the afternoon sun.
posted by kaibutsu at 11:56 PM on August 30, 2004
Yeah, it's a lame post. And not just because I usually release software under the GPL.
posted by Galvatron at 11:57 PM on August 30, 2004
posted by Galvatron at 11:57 PM on August 30, 2004
I love those TLAs when nobody explains what the letters stand for.
I looked them up: General Purpose Language and Berkely Software Distribution......right?
posted by SpaceCadet at 1:41 AM on August 31, 2004
I looked them up: General Purpose Language and Berkely Software Distribution......right?
posted by SpaceCadet at 1:41 AM on August 31, 2004
You're right on BSD, but GPL is the Gnu Public Licence.
posted by holloway at 1:46 AM on August 31, 2004
posted by holloway at 1:46 AM on August 31, 2004
Ask and ye shall receive! Perhaps I should have posed the question on Ask.Me. Hope nobody calls me out for this!
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:18 AM on August 31, 2004
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:18 AM on August 31, 2004
So, is this a callout? Cuz I'll put my foot in reklaw's ass for that bullshit.
I have no idea what's going on.
posted by Witty at 5:06 AM on August 31, 2004
I have no idea what's going on.
posted by Witty at 5:06 AM on August 31, 2004
It's a callout. Reklaw used a post that had nothing to do with his position to preach his position. Effectively you could apply his argument to anything: Laws against murder don't stop murders, therefore we should abolish those laws. Oh, and here's a link to an article on somebody who got murdered.
posted by substrate at 5:24 AM on August 31, 2004
posted by substrate at 5:24 AM on August 31, 2004
I like the new comedy-Witty much better than the last one!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:33 AM on August 31, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:33 AM on August 31, 2004
Who who who, Witty is actually being.. witty! Incredible
posted by Space Coyote at 6:09 AM on August 31, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 6:09 AM on August 31, 2004
We're just lucky that most of metafilter can't tell the MIT from the GPL, which means that relatively few of us fell for this little troll.
posted by sfenders at 7:35 AM on August 31, 2004
posted by sfenders at 7:35 AM on August 31, 2004
I have no idea what's going on.
Witty, you're pathetic. I bet you don't even know what a RFC is!
posted by soyjoy at 7:39 AM on August 31, 2004
Witty, you're pathetic. I bet you don't even know what a RFC is!
posted by soyjoy at 7:39 AM on August 31, 2004
Oh, soyjoy! You piddled in my playnbox!
This was my comment:
'Does this make recklaw today's "Poimp of Shame" MeTa blood sacrifice? Does he even know what an RFC is?'
posted by taz at 7:45 AM on August 31, 2004
This was my comment:
'Does this make recklaw today's "Poimp of Shame" MeTa blood sacrifice? Does he even know what an RFC is?'
posted by taz at 7:45 AM on August 31, 2004
taz, you get the points for saying "an" instead of "a" RFC. But you lose them for misspelling "reklaw."
I think we've all learned a little lesson here today.
posted by soyjoy at 7:50 AM on August 31, 2004
I think we've all learned a little lesson here today.
posted by soyjoy at 7:50 AM on August 31, 2004
oops. How many points do I get for misspelling "playbox"? How many for using "poimp"? How many for crossthread pollinating?
posted by taz at 7:56 AM on August 31, 2004
posted by taz at 7:56 AM on August 31, 2004
This is why we can't have nice things. Things like poimps, and RFCs.
And taz, why do you hate playnboxes so much?
posted by iconomy at 8:01 AM on August 31, 2004
And taz, why do you hate playnboxes so much?
posted by iconomy at 8:01 AM on August 31, 2004
My first MeTa callout. Yay.
Anyway, I think my angle stands (if you're not a GPL zealot). Many people think GPL is the open source/free software license. These people think it offers them some kind of protection. This case demonstrates that it does not.
Basically, some guy released his software under GPL. He allowed people to put patches into this GPLed software. He then took the code, with their patches, and made it proprietary. Depending on what you believe, either he can do this (since he is the original author) or he can't (since it's a GPL violation, ie. a violation of the copyrights of the patch contributors). This is a GPL flaw, period. And the GPL is full of them. I think it's worthwhile for people to know that.
To use the various law analogies: someone did get murdered, and I was pointing out that the laws regarding murder are full of holes.
posted by reklaw at 8:19 AM on August 31, 2004
Anyway, I think my angle stands (if you're not a GPL zealot). Many people think GPL is the open source/free software license. These people think it offers them some kind of protection. This case demonstrates that it does not.
Basically, some guy released his software under GPL. He allowed people to put patches into this GPLed software. He then took the code, with their patches, and made it proprietary. Depending on what you believe, either he can do this (since he is the original author) or he can't (since it's a GPL violation, ie. a violation of the copyrights of the patch contributors). This is a GPL flaw, period. And the GPL is full of them. I think it's worthwhile for people to know that.
To use the various law analogies: someone did get murdered, and I was pointing out that the laws regarding murder are full of holes.
posted by reklaw at 8:19 AM on August 31, 2004
Shorter reklaw: I think i'm right and if you don't agree you're a zealot.
If the contributors assigned copyright to the author of xchat then this is still perfectly kosher. He wouldn't, on the other hand, have been able to take a bunch of code from the linux kernel and used it in a proprietary binary distribution.
But I don't want to move this argument in here, since we're supposed to be talking about the post.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:30 AM on August 31, 2004
If the contributors assigned copyright to the author of xchat then this is still perfectly kosher. He wouldn't, on the other hand, have been able to take a bunch of code from the linux kernel and used it in a proprietary binary distribution.
But I don't want to move this argument in here, since we're supposed to be talking about the post.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:30 AM on August 31, 2004
playnbox wasn't misspelled. It's a box that you play n.
Duh.
posted by soyjoy at 9:25 AM on August 31, 2004
Duh.
posted by soyjoy at 9:25 AM on August 31, 2004
holloway: No, the GPL stands for General Public License. The full name is the GNU GPL. To wit.
posted by Captain_Tenille at 9:42 AM on August 31, 2004
posted by Captain_Tenille at 9:42 AM on August 31, 2004
Depending on what you believe, either he can do this (since he is the original author) or he can't. ... This is a GPL flaw, period.
1: that situation is not in any way specific to the GPL. It would be pretty much the same with any other license that restricts redistribution in any way.
2: it depends not on what you believe, but on what happened, which we don't really know in sufficient detail yet. None of the people who actually hold copyright to any of the code have weighed in yet (at least in the links you provided), and they're the only ones legally empowered to make a complaint.
3: as many have noted, even if this guy did violate the GPL, that doesn't mean the GPL is worthless. It doesn't even provide any kind of evidence of that, until he actually gets away with it, which he hasn't yet.
4: there have been many larger, more significant violations of the GPL. Along with the fact that it hasn't progressed very far yet, that makes this case a poor choice.
5: saying what amounts to "teh GPL sucks, dude" is pointless. It's not like anyone who cares hasn't already had that conversation. You're not adding anything new.
Might as well post about emacs not running properly on someone's '386 laptop, followed by "This is why I tell everyone to use a real editor like vi." It's total garbage, the sort of thing that should be deleted on sight.
posted by sfenders at 9:49 AM on August 31, 2004
1: that situation is not in any way specific to the GPL. It would be pretty much the same with any other license that restricts redistribution in any way.
2: it depends not on what you believe, but on what happened, which we don't really know in sufficient detail yet. None of the people who actually hold copyright to any of the code have weighed in yet (at least in the links you provided), and they're the only ones legally empowered to make a complaint.
3: as many have noted, even if this guy did violate the GPL, that doesn't mean the GPL is worthless. It doesn't even provide any kind of evidence of that, until he actually gets away with it, which he hasn't yet.
4: there have been many larger, more significant violations of the GPL. Along with the fact that it hasn't progressed very far yet, that makes this case a poor choice.
5: saying what amounts to "teh GPL sucks, dude" is pointless. It's not like anyone who cares hasn't already had that conversation. You're not adding anything new.
Might as well post about emacs not running properly on someone's '386 laptop, followed by "This is why I tell everyone to use a real editor like vi." It's total garbage, the sort of thing that should be deleted on sight.
posted by sfenders at 9:49 AM on August 31, 2004
reklaw is (sorry to say) an idiot with a huge ego. His posting history has many posts relating to this subject that are abusive and purposefully misinformed. I have no idea what his agenda is but he is purposefully distorting information and systematically insulting and abusing anyone who disagrees with him.
The GPL would be a flawed version of the BSD license if they sought the same end. As it turns out they don't, so any BSD > GPL argument you can make is subjective. Reklaw poses all such comparisons as matters of fact without any allowance for other's points of view, which given the subject are perfectly valid.
He's basically screaming out for the world to finally agree with him that red is the best color.
posted by n9 at 10:04 AM on August 31, 2004
The GPL would be a flawed version of the BSD license if they sought the same end. As it turns out they don't, so any BSD > GPL argument you can make is subjective. Reklaw poses all such comparisons as matters of fact without any allowance for other's points of view, which given the subject are perfectly valid.
He's basically screaming out for the world to finally agree with him that red is the best color.
posted by n9 at 10:04 AM on August 31, 2004
Don't you dare dis on emacs, sfenders, I'll whomp yo ass.
posted by rocketman at 10:14 AM on August 31, 2004
posted by rocketman at 10:14 AM on August 31, 2004
WTF is going on here?!?
posted by Quartermass at 11:00 AM on August 31, 2004
posted by Quartermass at 11:00 AM on August 31, 2004
It's a callout. Reklaw used a post that had nothing to do with his position to preach his position.
On MetaFilter???? You've got to be fucking kidding me. GET HIM.
*grabs torch and pitchfork*
posted by eyeballkid at 11:03 AM on August 31, 2004
On MetaFilter???? You've got to be fucking kidding me. GET HIM.
*grabs torch and pitchfork*
posted by eyeballkid at 11:03 AM on August 31, 2004
reklaw is (sorry to say) an idiot with a huge ego. His posting history has many posts relating to this subject that are abusive and purposefully misinformed. I have no idea what his agenda is but he is purposefully distorting information and systematically insulting and abusing anyone who disagrees with him.
It's true, I write about the GPL a lot. I've written about it at Kuro5hin, too -- I even wrote an article for Newsforge on the subject, once (you should have seen the emails I got, sheesh). I'm interested in the subject.
Richard Stallman seems to have succeeded in introducing this idea that the GPL is somehow a "free" license, when it is anything but. My problems with the GPL are twofold:
1. It is not "free as in freedom" (supporters will attempt absurd re-definitions of "freedom" when challenged on this -- "it's about freedom from other people taking my code", and such).
2. Even if you agree with the GPL's aims, ie. you want to maintain source visibility at all costs, it doesn't even do that very well.
I post about the GPL because I am consistently amazed at how the world has fallen for it. It's become a dogma, almost a religion. Pointing out that the GPL is flawed or that its aims are undesirable gets you tarred as some kind of anti-free Microsoft shill. It upsets me for the same reason Christianity upsets me -- because it's an absurd dogma that's really widespread among many people who are otherwise entirely rational.
The post was about a flaw in the GPL: if you assign copyright to one person or organisation (as the concept of "submitting patches" tends to suggest), then the GPL offers little protection against the whole thing being sold without source available. The only recourse people have is to fork the project, and that's a recourse they would have had with a proper open source license, like BSD.
I don't see how this leap of logic is so hard to grasp. I think people just don't want to see it.
posted by reklaw at 12:57 PM on August 31, 2004
It's true, I write about the GPL a lot. I've written about it at Kuro5hin, too -- I even wrote an article for Newsforge on the subject, once (you should have seen the emails I got, sheesh). I'm interested in the subject.
Richard Stallman seems to have succeeded in introducing this idea that the GPL is somehow a "free" license, when it is anything but. My problems with the GPL are twofold:
1. It is not "free as in freedom" (supporters will attempt absurd re-definitions of "freedom" when challenged on this -- "it's about freedom from other people taking my code", and such).
2. Even if you agree with the GPL's aims, ie. you want to maintain source visibility at all costs, it doesn't even do that very well.
I post about the GPL because I am consistently amazed at how the world has fallen for it. It's become a dogma, almost a religion. Pointing out that the GPL is flawed or that its aims are undesirable gets you tarred as some kind of anti-free Microsoft shill. It upsets me for the same reason Christianity upsets me -- because it's an absurd dogma that's really widespread among many people who are otherwise entirely rational.
The post was about a flaw in the GPL: if you assign copyright to one person or organisation (as the concept of "submitting patches" tends to suggest), then the GPL offers little protection against the whole thing being sold without source available. The only recourse people have is to fork the project, and that's a recourse they would have had with a proper open source license, like BSD.
I don't see how this leap of logic is so hard to grasp. I think people just don't want to see it.
posted by reklaw at 12:57 PM on August 31, 2004
I post about the GPL because I am consistently amazed at how the world has fallen for it. It's become a dogmaAnd you trot out equivalent dogmacrap about the BSD license. Different licenses float different peoples boats.
posted by substrate at 1:28 PM on August 31, 2004
Anyone still can fork the project from the last release's GPL'd code. Why would you think they couldn't?
I don't think you're a microsoft shill. I think you just don't know what you're talking about.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:30 PM on August 31, 2004
I don't think you're a microsoft shill. I think you just don't know what you're talking about.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:30 PM on August 31, 2004
substrate: There is very little dogma devoted to the BSD license. Stallman, on the other hand, has a whole section of his website devoted to GPL dogma, and people just love linking to it.
sonofsamiam: I know that they can still fork from the last release's GPL code, I just said that.
The only recourse people have is to fork the project, and that's a recourse they would have had with a proper open source license, like BSD.
See? The point is that the GPL is designed to always make code visible if GPLed code is mixed in. If it can't manage this --well, again, you might as well be using the BSD license. The GPL's requirement for source to be provided for improved/modified versions is the only substantial way that the two licenses differ; apart from, of course, the added complexity and confusion that comes with the GPL.
You know, it seems pretty silly to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about without even reading what I said.
posted by reklaw at 1:49 PM on August 31, 2004
sonofsamiam: I know that they can still fork from the last release's GPL code, I just said that.
The only recourse people have is to fork the project, and that's a recourse they would have had with a proper open source license, like BSD.
See? The point is that the GPL is designed to always make code visible if GPLed code is mixed in. If it can't manage this --well, again, you might as well be using the BSD license. The GPL's requirement for source to be provided for improved/modified versions is the only substantial way that the two licenses differ; apart from, of course, the added complexity and confusion that comes with the GPL.
You know, it seems pretty silly to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about without even reading what I said.
posted by reklaw at 1:49 PM on August 31, 2004
I thought BSD was what you call it when you tie people up and fiddle with them.
I need to read more clearly.
posted by padraigin at 2:03 PM on August 31, 2004
I need to read more clearly.
posted by padraigin at 2:03 PM on August 31, 2004
the GPL offers little protection against the whole thing being sold without source available.
It provides exactly as much protection against that as the author of the code wants it to. So what's wrong with that again?
(Well, okay, it's not necessarily the author of the code, but the owner of the copyright. That is by default held by the person who creates it. The better organized projects (such as those of the FSF) have an explicit policy on the copyright status of patches. With those that don't, it's generally assumed that the contributor retains the copyright to whatever he adds. This project has a maintainer who apparently thinks otherwise, hence the controversy. Again, the problem is entirely one of copyright assignment, and has nothing to do with the specifics of the GPL.)
There is very little dogma devoted to the BSD license.
There seems to be a little more every time you post on the subject...
posted by sfenders at 2:22 PM on August 31, 2004
It provides exactly as much protection against that as the author of the code wants it to. So what's wrong with that again?
(Well, okay, it's not necessarily the author of the code, but the owner of the copyright. That is by default held by the person who creates it. The better organized projects (such as those of the FSF) have an explicit policy on the copyright status of patches. With those that don't, it's generally assumed that the contributor retains the copyright to whatever he adds. This project has a maintainer who apparently thinks otherwise, hence the controversy. Again, the problem is entirely one of copyright assignment, and has nothing to do with the specifics of the GPL.)
There is very little dogma devoted to the BSD license.
There seems to be a little more every time you post on the subject...
posted by sfenders at 2:22 PM on August 31, 2004
This thread is about one poster's tendency to use a weak post to climb on a soapbox. Said poster then comes in and climbs on soapbox again.
The point is, even if reklaw's gpl opinion was dead on, the post he constructed is a bad one and he behaved poorly within the thread. Being right or not is neither here nor there in this case.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:23 PM on August 31, 2004
The point is, even if reklaw's gpl opinion was dead on, the post he constructed is a bad one and he behaved poorly within the thread. Being right or not is neither here nor there in this case.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:23 PM on August 31, 2004
I need to read more clearly.
You don't need to read anything. Just tell us if yer fer' or agin' it.
posted by yerfatma at 2:26 PM on August 31, 2004
You don't need to read anything. Just tell us if yer fer' or agin' it.
posted by yerfatma at 2:26 PM on August 31, 2004
The point is, even if reklaw's gpl opinion was dead on, the post he constructed is a bad one and he behaved poorly within the thread. Being right or not is neither here nor there in this case.Exactly.
posted by holloway at 2:37 PM on August 31, 2004
Because no-one ever includes their opinion in a mefi post, do they? When did it become a requirement for all posts to be objective?
posted by reklaw at 2:53 PM on August 31, 2004
posted by reklaw at 2:53 PM on August 31, 2004
Well, I guess I did misparse that sentence. But Zed is almost certainly in the wrong. The code that was contributed by others was GPL'd in prior releases. If he uses it in a closed-source product, he is violating the GPL. If he cannot remove the contributed code, then he cannot distribute a non-GPL'd distribution.
If the contributing developers cared very much, they could sue him and enforce the license.
What the BSD license has to do with any of this, I can't understand.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:06 PM on August 31, 2004
If the contributing developers cared very much, they could sue him and enforce the license.
What the BSD license has to do with any of this, I can't understand.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:06 PM on August 31, 2004
BSD vs. GNU GPL
Opportunity for a shoddy, but amusing flash movie/game/small furry mammal based animation.
Is this something I would have to read slashdot to understand?
Get a room. etc.
posted by asok at 3:08 PM on August 31, 2004
Opportunity for a shoddy, but amusing flash movie/game/small furry mammal based animation.
Is this something I would have to read slashdot to understand?
Get a room. etc.
posted by asok at 3:08 PM on August 31, 2004
Hey asok, I don't know if you read my thanks before but your CD is a favourite at parties.
posted by holloway at 3:15 PM on August 31, 2004
posted by holloway at 3:15 PM on August 31, 2004
Hello sirs! Please tell me where to buy this bullshit detector? I could greatly use one in my day-to-day experiences to detect the bullshit! It is quite troubling to deal with the bullshit without the bullshit detector.
posted by bargle at 3:20 PM on August 31, 2004
posted by bargle at 3:20 PM on August 31, 2004
I thought it was a shoddy posting. I know its all big on Slashdot and all, but the issue is really a pretty weak one. I mean, really -- xchat? Is this supposed to be a groundbreaking case for the GPL? There's no need to be unbiased, reklaw, but for crissakes mount a compelling argument for something.
Boring, not worthy of a FPP.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 3:48 PM on August 31, 2004
Boring, not worthy of a FPP.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 3:48 PM on August 31, 2004
reklaw -- are you a license and or contract lawyer? If your answer is no and you feel so strongly about this subject then please go to law school, get your facts straight, learn how to form a cogent argument and come back and make another FPP about this. Until then you are just blowing smoke into a big room.
posted by n9 at 6:36 AM on September 1, 2004
posted by n9 at 6:36 AM on September 1, 2004
Darn straight it's serious business, were's making cakes here!
Gnu Cakes 1.4
============
A winter treat!
INGREDIENTS
2 cups self-raising flour
1 teaspoon baking powder
2 tablespoon sugar
1 size 7 egg (or larger)
1 cup of milk
1 teaspoon of vege oil
1 cup of the bile dripping from reklaws mouth.
INSTRUCTIONS
Mix the following together: flour, baking powder, sugar, salt. Leave it for 5 minutes after mixing.
In a seperate bowl mix the rest of the ingredients together, and then fold this into the original mixture and place into muffin trays.
Bake on 350 C or until golden brown. Leave to cool near the window and watch out for bears!
Released under the GPL 1.3 or later.
posted by holloway at 2:32 PM on September 2, 2004
Gnu Cakes 1.4
============
A winter treat!
INGREDIENTS
2 cups self-raising flour
1 teaspoon baking powder
2 tablespoon sugar
1 size 7 egg (or larger)
1 cup of milk
1 teaspoon of vege oil
1 cup of the bile dripping from reklaws mouth.
INSTRUCTIONS
Mix the following together: flour, baking powder, sugar, salt. Leave it for 5 minutes after mixing.
In a seperate bowl mix the rest of the ingredients together, and then fold this into the original mixture and place into muffin trays.
Bake on 350 C or until golden brown. Leave to cool near the window and watch out for bears!
Released under the GPL 1.3 or later.
posted by holloway at 2:32 PM on September 2, 2004
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by dhoyt at 10:59 PM on August 30, 2004