Free and Open Source Licenses DistroTube
video description
Date: 2022-03-30
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Jonathon
First off BSD is everywhere. The PS4 is BSD, and most likely part of the reason for this is the license.
I think you are really not realizing just how bad the virus nature is. It is actually way way worse than that. The example you give of the virus nature is only true if only a single Copy Left license exists. If more than a single copy left license exists than you have just created proprietary software with more steps and lawyers.
Secondly, as a computer programmer, I realize that coding is copying others work. You do not write anything without consciously or unconsciously copying dozens to thousands of sources. Sometimes I am incorporating libraries, sometimes I am copying code from a webpage, sometimes I am writing out code I have previously memorized. If all software developers were being honest, the viral nature of GPL would mean all code would legally have to be GPL by now.
reply
First off BSD is everywhere. The PS4 is BSD, and most likely part of the reason for this is the license.
I think you are really not realizing just how bad the virus nature is. It is actually way way worse than that. The example you give of the virus nature is only true if only a single Copy Left license exists. If more than a single copy left license exists than you have just created proprietary software with more steps and lawyers.
Secondly, as a computer programmer, I realize that coding is copying others work. You do not write anything without consciously or unconsciously copying dozens to thousands of sources. Sometimes I am incorporating libraries, sometimes I am copying code from a webpage, sometimes I am writing out code I have previously memorized. If all software developers were being honest, the viral nature of GPL would mean all code would legally have to be GPL by now.
reply
Generic
If I make a piece of software using a tool someone else provided, why should I have to give away my source code?!
If you give away your source code, someone in a country where license laws are not enforced WILL simply compile their own copy and sell it as their own work for commercial gain with little-to-no changes made.
This whole romanticism of everyone getting paid to release their source code is fantasy land nonsense. In the real world, you'll get plagiarised instantly.
The moment you give away your source code is the moment you're giving someone else your paycheck.
I'm happy to use free closed-source tools if I have the header file and at least halfway decent documentation.
reply
If I make a piece of software using a tool someone else provided, why should I have to give away my source code?!
If you give away your source code, someone in a country where license laws are not enforced WILL simply compile their own copy and sell it as their own work for commercial gain with little-to-no changes made.
This whole romanticism of everyone getting paid to release their source code is fantasy land nonsense. In the real world, you'll get plagiarised instantly.
The moment you give away your source code is the moment you're giving someone else your paycheck.
I'm happy to use free closed-source tools if I have the header file and at least halfway decent documentation.
reply
L'internet
I read the MIT licence but it seems that it is posible to REDISTRIBUTE PUBLICLY an exact copy of a software under this licence WITHOUT ANY MODIFICATIONS, and I don't agree with that, I don't mind if someone downloads it and then give it to someone else (not publicly) or if someone modifies it and redistribute it even publicly and makes money with these modifications but I don't want my software to be availiable for download on another website as is without any modifications, does the MIT licence acctually allows this or I didn't understand ? If it does, is there another licence that doesn't ? Thank you for reading.
reply
I read the MIT licence but it seems that it is posible to REDISTRIBUTE PUBLICLY an exact copy of a software under this licence WITHOUT ANY MODIFICATIONS, and I don't agree with that, I don't mind if someone downloads it and then give it to someone else (not publicly) or if someone modifies it and redistribute it even publicly and makes money with these modifications but I don't want my software to be availiable for download on another website as is without any modifications, does the MIT licence acctually allows this or I didn't understand ? If it does, is there another licence that doesn't ? Thank you for reading.
reply
Barafu
What I consider immoral is slapping GPL everywhere and then complaining that companies are reluctant to come to Linux world. You can only make money with GPL product in two cases. a) The product is so complicated that you can successfully sell support and training. or b) You are able to circumvent GPL restrictions with one of the few methods, like running server on your hardware. Either don't use GPL everywhere or stop complaining that there is not enough good software for Linux. Or prove me wrong and give an example how a company of two developers can earn money on GPL software they write.
reply
What I consider immoral is slapping GPL everywhere and then complaining that companies are reluctant to come to Linux world. You can only make money with GPL product in two cases. a) The product is so complicated that you can successfully sell support and training. or b) You are able to circumvent GPL restrictions with one of the few methods, like running server on your hardware. Either don't use GPL everywhere or stop complaining that there is not enough good software for Linux. Or prove me wrong and give an example how a company of two developers can earn money on GPL software they write.
reply
Maaz
It doesn't make sense to call the permissive licenses as -immoral- or -unethical.- It is neither immoral or unethical if the developer wants to give everyone the freedom to do whatever they want with the code, including creating paid and proprietary derivatives. On the contrary, that is true -freedom.- However, this doesn't mean that GPL v3 license is bad. It's built to further the free software movement, and it does it's job. But ironically, in the process of promoting free software, it takes away certain freedoms. This is why the Linux kernel still uses GPL v2, which is not as restrictive.
reply
It doesn't make sense to call the permissive licenses as -immoral- or -unethical.- It is neither immoral or unethical if the developer wants to give everyone the freedom to do whatever they want with the code, including creating paid and proprietary derivatives. On the contrary, that is true -freedom.- However, this doesn't mean that GPL v3 license is bad. It's built to further the free software movement, and it does it's job. But ironically, in the process of promoting free software, it takes away certain freedoms. This is why the Linux kernel still uses GPL v2, which is not as restrictive.
reply
Synth
It is true that the GPL doesn't allow closed source derivative works. BUT, if you are the FIRST/ORIGINAL author of the GPLed code (provided that it has no GPL dependencies). (It seams) that you can double license your code. Meaning that you can produce one version of your code as opensource to gain popularity. And then make another version of your code closed source, one that has more features (or different features) and then sell it. I've actually seen a project do that. That project now is more popular than ever. Also the closed source version of it links to open source plugins/dlls.
reply
It is true that the GPL doesn't allow closed source derivative works. BUT, if you are the FIRST/ORIGINAL author of the GPLed code (provided that it has no GPL dependencies). (It seams) that you can double license your code. Meaning that you can produce one version of your code as opensource to gain popularity. And then make another version of your code closed source, one that has more features (or different features) and then sell it. I've actually seen a project do that. That project now is more popular than ever. Also the closed source version of it links to open source plugins/dlls.
reply
Fernando
Non-permissive licenses for code that makes computing more accessible to those with special needs (or whatever the new phrase is for the physiological afflictions some endure) is evil. If such code is licensed under non-permissive licenses, than it can not be used in proprietary software that a potential employer may use. In this case, you didn't stick to -THE MAN-. You stuck it to the guy who has a harder time with things that are easier for most. Making code available for greater accessibility for those who need it should outweigh your desire to spread GPL. Change my mind.
reply
Non-permissive licenses for code that makes computing more accessible to those with special needs (or whatever the new phrase is for the physiological afflictions some endure) is evil. If such code is licensed under non-permissive licenses, than it can not be used in proprietary software that a potential employer may use. In this case, you didn't stick to -THE MAN-. You stuck it to the guy who has a harder time with things that are easier for most. Making code available for greater accessibility for those who need it should outweigh your desire to spread GPL. Change my mind.
reply
classicrockonly
GPL is forced -freedom-... saying we have to accept its version of freedom. I don-t feel free as a developer having to worry about copyleft hooks. What if my view of freedom is different? I don-t want to be a lawyer to understand what my licensed code falls under in dos and donts. Permissive is ACTUALLY free at the expense of someone being able to make a proprietary product from my work. Go ahead. I-d rather you contribute back to me bc of altruism or if it-s to your benefit, not because I-m forcing it. That-s not free
reply
GPL is forced -freedom-... saying we have to accept its version of freedom. I don-t feel free as a developer having to worry about copyleft hooks. What if my view of freedom is different? I don-t want to be a lawyer to understand what my licensed code falls under in dos and donts. Permissive is ACTUALLY free at the expense of someone being able to make a proprietary product from my work. Go ahead. I-d rather you contribute back to me bc of altruism or if it-s to your benefit, not because I-m forcing it. That-s not free
reply
SomeGuyWithWifi
And I think your argument about it being immoral is contextual and wrong as a blanket statement. If you want to create a piece of software or a library that-s a powerful toolset and give that available to anyone for free that-s your choice, what they then make out of it shouldn-t have to then be openly available and redistributable to anyone. If you were giving paints away for free to aspiring artists that shouldn-t mean those artists have to give their paintings away for free as well.
reply
And I think your argument about it being immoral is contextual and wrong as a blanket statement. If you want to create a piece of software or a library that-s a powerful toolset and give that available to anyone for free that-s your choice, what they then make out of it shouldn-t have to then be openly available and redistributable to anyone. If you were giving paints away for free to aspiring artists that shouldn-t mean those artists have to give their paintings away for free as well.
reply
Rob
So help me to understand- First, the Chinese copy almost everything that they can make money out of. So if I design a product that is a mixture of hardware and software, the Chinese could rip that hardware off. And if I license the software under GPL, The Chinese could then use that software to complement the stolen hardware. What am I missing?
reply
So help me to understand- First, the Chinese copy almost everything that they can make money out of. So if I design a product that is a mixture of hardware and software, the Chinese could rip that hardware off. And if I license the software under GPL, The Chinese could then use that software to complement the stolen hardware. What am I missing?
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
