They're silly, folks. Intellectual property is a spook.

Under communism all software will be free to share, use, and modify without restriction.

This post inspired by the current Ruby mimemagic gem license drama.

In case you're not following:

  • mimemagic is a Ruby library (gem) used for detecting the MIME types of files, either by their extension or by their content
  • it's widely used and included in Rails
  • it was MIT licensed
  • it was using an xml file from freedesktop dot org, which is a GPL project
  • the GPL license means that every project that uses that software must also be GPL licensed - open-source, freely usable/modifiable/etc
  • someone from freedesktop pointed this out to the mimemagic maintainer
  • the maintainer republished the gem as GPL and yanked all the MIT licensed gems, breaking builds everywhere, and making rails currently uninstallable

I have a big headache because of ideology.

  • fairport [he/him,comrade/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    I'm all for open source but GPL is a fucking headache in any commercial use.

    It's ironic that Stallman says that GPL has more "freedoms" while in fact, those freedoms aren't freedoms at all, they are restrictions so people cannot use any GPL software without it infecting everything it's used with the GPL license. Just by using one piece of GPL software, your software becomes GPL too.

    I think the license with the most freedom would be the public domain since it doesn't dictate where and when you can use the software.

      • fairport [he/him,comrade/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Yeah, maybe it’s a view I have internalized since I write code for a living and I have to be really careful about licenses in software we use.

        If course if there was no profit motive in software, GPL would be completely fine.

        I still think the viral nature with GPL is a bit too much, I prefer LGPL model where you can use unmodified version of a library without your own software becoming GPL. It also encourages you to provide patches upstream so everyone benefits from the improvement without having to GPL their code.

        • ToastGhost [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Yeah your perspectiveon this is basically that of the corporation, because in doing your job you do enact their will, so what makes your job easiest is what the corporation dictating your work wants. It is a pain for corporations by design, and part of your job is managing this difficulty, in which they place all blame upon you, its easy to end up hating the license instead of the corporation that demands you avoid it.

    • wantonviolins [they/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      To be entirely fair to the GPL, the entire point of those clauses is to keep people from locking up projects that use GPL code, like TiVo did in the mid-2000’s.

      If you use GPL code, you have a responsibility to actually be a member of the community. Use MIT-licensed software if you hate the idea of civic duty.

      • NonWonderDog [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        The problem with all of this is that being a part of the community doesn't buy me food.

        The main incentive for a developer working for a capitalist to use free software is to make their job easier or to get their boss off their ass. GPL doesn't do that, and in fact actively works against it.

        If the GPL could incentivize developers to turn against their bosses, that would be great. But a software license can't do that.

        So the only people who contribute to GPL are either independently wealthy or weirdly enthusiastic about doing their day job for free in their spare time.

    • alcoholicorn [comrade/them, doe/deer]
      ·
      3 years ago

      they are restrictions so people cannot use any GPL software without it infecting everything it’s used with the GPL license. Just by using one piece of GPL software, your software becomes GPL too.

      That's the idea, you're preventing software that depends on you from enforcing bullshit restrictions.

      those freedoms aren’t freedoms at all,

      Freedom to restrict people's use of software is a net decrease in freedom. Restrictions in how you can restrict people's use of software is a net increase in freedom.