new extension generator for C++

[Paul Rubin]

People who esteem their users give them freedom to use software
however they see fit, including combining it with proprietary
software.

Huh???? That makes no sense at all. Why should a standard like that be
expected from free software developers, when it isn't expected from the
makers of the proprietary software who you're proposing deserve to rake
in big bucks from locking up other people's work that they didn't pay
for?

I've got no problem writing stuff for inclusion in proprietary products.
But I do that as a professional, which means I expect to get paid for
it. And I think you have the "esteem" issue backwards. Users who
esteem developers who write and share software for community benefit,
should not whine and pout that the largesse doesn't extend as far as
inviting monopolistic corporations to lock it away from further sharing.

 

[Paul Rubin]

I fail to see what is morally wrong with it. When I ,as the author,
share my work to the public, I should have made peace with the fact
that I, for all intends and purposes, lost control over its use.

Does the same thing apply to Microsoft? If I get a copy of MS Office,
do you think I should be able to incorporate its code into my own
products for repackaging and sale any way that I want, without their
having any say? If not, why should Microsoft be entitled to do that
with software that -I- write? Is there something in the water making
people think these inequitable things? If Microsoft's licenses are
morally respectable then so is the GPL.

 

[Paul Rubin]

For the record, I've published software under an MIT licence because I
judged the cost of the moral hazard introduced by encouraging freeloaders
to be less than the benefits of having a more permissive licence that
encourages freeloading and therefore attracts more users. For other
software, I might judge that the cost/benefit ratio falls in a different
place, and hence choose the GPL.

I don't know if it counts as a moral hazard but some programmers simply
don't want to do proprietary product development for free. That's why
Linux (GPL) has far more developers (and consequentially far more
functionality and more users) than the free versions of BSD, and GCC
(GPL) has far more developers than Python. Of course the BSD license
did allow Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to become billionaires off the work
off the developers who actually wrote the Berkeley code and are now
struggling to make their rent. But at least those developers can be
proud that the Microsoft and Apple DRM empires benefited so much from
their efforts. THAT's a level of self-sacrifice that I can do without.

Note, "permissive license" is a Microsoft propaganda term from what I
can tell. "Forbidding forbidden" is how I like to think of the GPL.

 

[Robert Kern]

Does the same thing apply to Microsoft? If I get a copy of MS Office,
do you think I should be able to incorporate its code into my own
products for repackaging and sale any way that I want, without their
having any say? If not, why should Microsoft be entitled to do that
with software that -I- write?

Martin is not saying that you *ought* to release your code under a liberal
license. He is only saying that he does not believe he is inviting moral hazard
when *he* decides to release *his* code under a liberal license. He was
responding to Steven who was claiming otherwise.

Is there something in the water making
people think these inequitable things?

Is there something in the water making people think that every statement of
opinion about how one licenses one's own code is actually an opinion about how
everyone should license their code?

If Microsoft's licenses are
morally respectable then so is the GPL.

Martin is not saying that the GPL is not morally respectable.

--
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco

 

[Robert Kern]

I don't know if it counts as a moral hazard but some programmers simply
don't want to do proprietary product development for free. That's why
Linux (GPL) has far more developers (and consequentially far more
functionality and more users) than the free versions of BSD, and GCC
(GPL) has far more developers than Python.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Show me some controlled studies demonstrating that
this is actually the causative agent in these cases, then maybe I'll believe you.

--
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco

 

[Paul Rubin]

Martin is not saying that you *ought* to release your code under a
liberal license. He is only saying that he does not believe he is
inviting moral hazard when *he* decides to release *his* code under a
liberal license. He was responding to Steven who was claiming
otherwise.

As I read it, he is saying that when someone releases free software,
they have "for all intends and purposes lost control over its use", so
they "should have made peace with the fact" and surrender gracefully.
I'm asking why he doesn't think Microsoft has lost control the same way.

 

[Carl Banks]

Huh????  That makes no sense at all.  Why should a standard like that be
expected from free software developers, when it isn't expected from the
makers of the proprietary software who you're proposing deserve to rake
in big bucks from locking up other people's work that they didn't pay
for?

Same thing's true commercial software, Sparky.

If a commercial developer has a EULA that prevents users from
combining their tools with tools from (say) their competitors, they
would be very much disrespecting their users. The GPL does exactly
that, and people who release GPL software disrespect their users just
as much as a commercial entity that requires you not to use competing
products.

But for some reason when someone and inflicts the disrespect of the
GPL on the community they're considered folk heroes. Bah.

I've got no problem writing stuff for inclusion in proprietary products.
But I do that as a professional, which means I expect to get paid for
it.  And I think you have the "esteem" issue backwards.  Users who
esteem developers who write and share software for community benefit,
should not whine and pout that the largesse doesn't extend as far as
inviting monopolistic corporations to lock it away from further sharing.

In your petty jealous zeal to prevent megacorporations from profiting
off free software, you prevent guys like me from doing useful,
community-focused things like writing extensions for commercial
software that uses GPL-licensed code. The GPL drives a wedge between
commercial and free software, making it difficult for the two to
coexist. That is far more detrimental to open source community than
the benefits of making a monopolistic corporation do a little extra
work to avoid having their codebase tainted by GPL.


Carl Banks

 

[Aahz]

I don't know if it counts as a moral hazard but some programmers simply
don't want to do proprietary product development for free. That's why
Linux (GPL) has far more developers (and consequentially far more
functionality and more users) than the free versions of BSD, and GCC
(GPL) has far more developers than Python.

What does your argument claim about Apache?

 

[Paul Rubin]

If a commercial developer has a EULA that prevents users from
combining their tools with tools from (say) their competitors,

Do you mean something like a EULA that stops you from buying a copy of
Oracle and combining it with tools from IBM on the computer that you
install Oracle on? Those EULAs exist but are not remotely comparable to
the GPL.

The GPL does exactly that,

No it doesn't (not like the above). You, the licensee under the GPL,
can make those combinations and use them as much as you want on your own
computers. You just can't distribute the resulting derivative to other
people. With proprietary software you can't redistribute the software
to other people from day zero (or even use more copies within your own
company than you've paid for), regardless of whether you've combined it
with anything. And since you usually don't get the source code, it's
awfully hard to make derived combinatoins.

 

[Paul Rubin]

What does your argument claim about Apache?

No idea. I don't have the impression the developer communities are
really similar, and Apache httpd doesn't have all that many developers
compared with something like Linux (I don't know what happens if you add
all the sister projects like Lucene).

I do know that the GPL has gotten companies to release major GCC
improvements that they would have preferred to make proprietary if
they'd had the option. That includes G++.

 

[Patrick Maupin]

No it doesn't (not like the above).  You, the licensee under the GPL,
can make those combinations and use them as much as you want on your own
computers.  You just can't distribute the resulting derivative to other
people.  With proprietary software you can't redistribute the software
to other people from day zero (or even use more copies within your own
company than you've paid for), regardless of whether you've combined it
with anything.  And since you usually don't get the source code, it's
awfully hard to make derived combinatoins.

But the point is that a lot of small developers who are writing
software don't need to distribute any software other than software
they wrote themselves. Their customers will have Oracle/Microsoft/IBM/
CA/whatever licenses already. Companies like Oracle support various
APIs that allow custom software to be connected to their software, so
if Carl is writing stuff to support Oracle, he can just distribute his
software to the customer, and let the customer link it himself.

Now when Carl's software links to GPLed software, it gets
interesting. Although it's probably a legal overreach, the FSF often
attempts to claim that software like Carl's, *by itself*, must be
licensed under the GPL, simply because it can link to GPLed software,
even if it doesn't actually contain any GPLed software. (Whether it's
a legal overreach or not, it's the position of the FSF, and of a lot
of authors who use the GPL, so morally it's probably best to follow
their wishes.)

The end result is that Carl can deliver software to his customer that
lets the customer link Oracle and Microsoft software together, for
example, but is prohibited from delivering software that lets the
customer link GPLed code to Oracle code, because the FSF considers
that software that would do that is a "derived work" and that Carl is
making a distribution when he gives it to his customer, and he is not
allowed to distribute GPLed code that links to proprietary Oracle
code.

Regards,
Pat

 

[Patrick Maupin]

No idea.  I don't have the impression the developer communities are
really similar, and Apache httpd doesn't have all that many developers
compared with something like Linux (I don't know what happens if you add
all the sister projects like Lucene).

I do know that the GPL has gotten companies to release major GCC
improvements that they would have preferred to make proprietary if
they'd had the option.  That includes G++.

Absolutely, and as Aahz acknowledges, RMS was a pioneer in introducing
people to the concept of free software. But fast forward to today,
and as ESR points out, the FOSS development model is so superior for
many classes of software that proprietary companies contribute to free
software even when they don't have to, and are working hard to support
hybrid models that the GPL doesn't support. See, for example, Apple's
support of BSD, Webkit, and LLVM. Apple is not a "do no evil"
corporation, and their contributions back to these packages are driven
far more by hard-nosed business decisions than by any expectation of
community goodwill.

Regards,
Pat

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

GPL is about fighting a holy war against commercial software.

Much GPL software *is* commercial software. Given that you're so badly
misinformed about the GPL that you think it can't be commercial, why
should we pay any attention to your opinions about it?

 

[Paul Rubin]

hybrid models that the GPL doesn't support. See, for example, Apple's
support of BSD, Webkit, and LLVM. Apple is not a "do no evil"
corporation, and their contributions back to these packages are driven
far more by hard-nosed business decisions than by any expectation of
community goodwill.

That is true. They've also supported GPL projects. I think they just
don't want to be in the business of selling those sorts of products.
They're making too much money selling iphones and laptops to want such a
distraction. Things were different with G++. The company that
developed it would have liked to go into the compiler business with it,
but it wasn't an option, so they released under GPL.

Linus has said similar things have happened with Linux, but I don't know
details.

 

[Patrick Maupin]

Much GPL software *is* commercial software. Given that you're so badly
misinformed about the GPL that you think it can't be commercial, why
should we pay any attention to your opinions about it?

I think, when Carl wrote "commercial" he meant what many others,
including RMS, would call "proprietary." And, although many people
who use the GPL license may not be fighting the holy war, the original
author of the license certainly is. When asked how he sees
proprietary software businesses making a profit when more and more
software is free, RMS replied "That's unethical, they shouldn't be
making any money. I hope to see all proprietary software wiped out.
That's what I aim for. That would be a World in which our freedom is
respected. A proprietary program is a program that is not free. That
is to say, a program that does respect the user's essential rights.
That's evil. A proprietary program is part of a predatory scheme where
people who don't value their freedom are drawn into giving it up in
order to gain some kind of practical convenience."

And while I agree somewhat with RMS when the subject is certain
proprietary companies that try really hard to lock in users and lock
up their data, I don't view all proprietary software as evil, and I
certainly agree that RMS's language is couched in religious rhetoric.

Regards,
Pat

 

[Paul Rubin]

I certainly agree that RMS's language is couched in religious rhetoric.

I would say political movement rhetoric. He's not religious. He uses
the word "spiritual" sometimes but has made it clear he doesn't mean
that in a religious sense.

 

[Carl Banks]

Much GPL software *is* commercial software. Given that you're so badly
misinformed about the GPL that you think it can't be commercial, why
should we pay any attention to your opinions about it?

In the interests of not allowing petty semantics to interfere with
this rational discussion, I will correct myself slightly although I
diagree with the terminology. The GPL is a holy war against closed
source commercial software. Anyone who GPL's their code is fighting
that war whether they intend to or not.

And losing it, I might add. There are a small number--maybe 20--of
GPLed packages that have the leverage to force monopolistic
corporations to release their code when they wouldn't have otherwise.
Even then it's only bits and pieces (e.g., NVIDIA's kernel model--
fortunately the X Video driver is allowed to be closed source,
otherwise there'd be no driver on Linux).

Meanwhile there's thousands of GPL packages the corporations won't
touch and they--and we--suffer because of it. I might like to buy a
commercial plugin for Blender, but there aren't any because it's GPL.
If good commercial plugins are available, maybe some firms would find
Blender a reasonable low-cost alternative to expensive products like
Maya, thus benefiting the whole community. As it is, there is no
chance of that happening, all thanks to GPL.

That's the real effect of the GPL, the one that happens on the ground
every day. But if you want to think that the GPL is furthering the
cause of open souce on account of a few companies who donated a few
lines of code to GCC, be my guest.

As for open-source "commercial" software, there's a different holy war
being waged against it, namely reality. No one actually makes money
on it. Open source is the bait to attract customers to buy other
services, ans that's what they make money on. To me this means it's
not commercial but it doesn't matter: the GPL even interferes with
this. Companies do make money supporting GPL, but it's in spite of
GPL and not because of it. A permissive license would allow companies
more freedom to offer their proprietary enhancements.

Bottom line is, GPL hurts everyone: the companies and open source
community. Unless you're one of a handful of projects with sufficient
leverage, or are indeed a petty jealous person fighting a holy war,
the GPL is a bad idea and everyone benefits from a more permissive
licence.

Carl Banks

 

[Carl Banks]

Do you mean something like a EULA that stops you from buying a copy of
Oracle and combining it with tools from IBM on the computer that you
install Oracle on?
Yes

 Those EULAs exist but are not remotely comparable to
the GPL.

They're not exactly the same but they're quite comparable and both
disrespectful to the user.

No it doesn't (not like the above).  You, the licensee under the GPL,
can make those combinations and use them as much as you want on your own
computers.  You just can't distribute the resulting derivative to other
people.  With proprietary software you can't redistribute the software
to other people from day zero (or even use more copies within your own
company than you've paid for), regardless of whether you've combined it
with anything.  And since you usually don't get the source code, it's
awfully hard to make derived combinatoins.

Really, commercial closed source programs don't have APIs?

If the EULA isn't disrespectful likle the GPL, then I could write a
program that links against multiple closed source API and distribute
closed or open source binaries. Can't do either if you change one of
the proprietary programs to GPL. GPL is a lot more restrictive than
mere closed source proprietary when it comes to stuff like that.


Carl Banks

 

[Martin P. Hellwig]

On 05/09/10 04:49, Paul Rubin wrote:

As I read it, he is saying that when someone releases free software,
they have "for all intends and purposes lost control over its use", so
they "should have made peace with the fact" and surrender gracefully.
I'm asking why he doesn't think Microsoft has lost control the same way.

Microsoft has indeed lost control of it in the same way, it is just
because we here in the 'western' world spend huge amount of money on
prosecuting and bringing to 'justice' does who, whether for commercial
purposes or otherwise, make a copy of a piece of code. Think about it,
it is not stealing, the original is still there and no further resources
where needed from the original developer.

What I am saying is that all this license crap is only needed because we
are used to a commercial environment where we can repeatedly profit from
the same work already done.

I am not saying that you should not profit, of course you should
otherwise there is no interest in making it in the first place.

What I am saying is that we as developers should encourage pay for work
and not pay for code. This will, as I believe it, keep everything much
more healthy and balanced. At least we can cut all the crap of software
patents and copyrights.

For those who say it can't be done, sure it can, all you have to do is
nothing, it takes effort to enforce policies.

 

[Paul Boddie]

Bottom line is, GPL hurts everyone: the companies and open source
community.  Unless you're one of a handful of projects with sufficient
leverage, or are indeed a petty jealous person fighting a holy war,
the GPL is a bad idea and everyone benefits from a more permissive
licence.

Oh sure: the GPL hurts everyone, like all the companies who have made
quite a lot of money out of effectively making Linux the new
enterprise successor to Unix, plus all the companies and individuals
who have taken the sources and rolled their own distributions.

It's not worth my time picking through your "holy war" rhetoric when
you're throwing "facts" like these around. As is almost always the
case, the people who see the merit in copyleft-style licensing have
clearly given the idea a lot more thought than those who immediately
start throwing mud at Richard Stallman because people won't let them
use some software as if it originated in a (universally acknowledged)
public domain environment.

Paul

P.S. And the GPL isn't meant to further the cause of open source: it's
meant to further the Free Software cause, which is not at all the same
thing. Before you ridicule other people's positions, at least get your
terminology right.