7 ms·

Yes, it is a shame that there are so many programs out there, that do not provide good line support because of the GPL issue.

by fceller 11y ago

davexunit 11y ago
Perhaps they should use the GPL.
- fceller 11y ago
  Why? I assume there are good reasons for not being GPL. Redis for example is BSD. But it cannot use readline because of it is not LGPL.
  - davexunit 11y ago
    GNU Readline is GPL on purpose. It's not the GNU project's fault that Redis cannot use Readline. The Redis maintainer isn't interested in protecting user freedom with copyleft, which means that Redis has to live without Readline.
    - don71 11y ago
      Why is GPL better than BSD for example. I have the full source code of Redis and I can do any change I like. Why is copyleft per se a better solution?
      - Xophmeister 11y ago
        "Better" is subjective. The virility of the GPL gives it certain properties that a BSD license doesn't, which is important to some [many].
      - rogerbinns 11y ago
        They both give roughly the same rights and benefits when using items under the license for your own purposes. The difference is when you want to redistribute. GPL says that when you redistribute, you cannot remove the freedoms you received in the first place. BSD says you can remove those freedoms. GNU & GPL really are about freedom as in freedom of speech. They ensure items cannot get less free when redistributed. BSD etc are more about getting out of your way, so you can do almost anything you want on redistribution. Copyleft matters to those who care about freedom first. The FSF has a good explanation: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Historically RMS has been seen as a bit of an alarmist over software related freedoms. However the passage of time often shows he isn't alarmist enough! Here is a good starter article from almost 20 years ago http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
    - antirez 11y ago
      You nailed it: I pass my days writing OSS code since 1997 and ship Redis with a license that provides the end user more freedom to do whatever she/he wants, because I'm not interested in protecting the user freedom.
      - davexunit 11y ago
        This little haiku by RMS sums it up nicely: Using GPL is encroaching on our right to encroach on yours The "more" freedom you are speaking of is the freedom to choose to deny others freedom.
        epistasis 11y ago
        Let me preface my comment by saying that the purpose of my comment is to let you know why I, an unconverted heathen, do not find your chain of comments compelling. I do not mean to convince you of my point of view, or to refute your points, but tell you why I'm unmoved. Repeating the same mantra, more forcefully, does not make it any more convincing or true. I find RMS's reasoning fundamentally flawed, overly simplistic, and though perhaps good in the short-term (less than a decade), detrimental to his stated goals over longer terms. Every couple years I revisit it, and discuss with true believers like you, and am just as unconvinced. GPL denies me and all users freedoms, and the inability of GPL supporters to even acknowledge that point tells me that politics has overtaken philosophy. The arguments for the GPL may have had more sway over me back in the 90s, but now with decades of actual data from BSD projects, I'm less than convinced that GPL offers more freedom for anybody. In fact, the exact opposite appears to be true. Politicking is a way to shut off people's brains long enough that lots of people can move in the same direction. Politicking has it's uses, but it has to stop and be reevaluated in order to make sure that his direction is correct, and that has not seemed to happen in the past few decades.
        antirez 11y ago
        Exactly, if you do an history check, GPL and similar restrictive licenses were used in the last decade a lot by companies wanting to retain control over the code, while BSD / MIT projects never incurred in the issues GPL-convinced people claimed to be the big risks, but effectively provided more freedom everybody. However to be fully honest, there is something new in the horizon now. The fact is that AWS and other similar service provides are starting to make it almost impossible for BSD projects to use the old viable business model of selling services. Now that BSD projects are "embedded" into AWS (or other) as a "just use" products where all the problems are solved by the service provider, open source as we traditionally thought at it may be a bit at risk. It's not clear to me what the fix for this is. I'm not ok with removing rights from my OSS code, but I feel there is something wrong if the value generated by OSS code is captured mostly by big players selling services.
- _ph_ 11y ago
  There are a lot of programs, which cannot use GPL for some of its restrictions, e.g. commercial software. But also in general, it is quite restrictive to have to change your softwares license just to use a certain library. Consequently, a lot of non-gpl open source software rather not uses readline than changing their license. I am very happy about any more liberally licensed alternative.
  - davexunit 11y ago
    >There are a lot of programs, which cannot use GPL for some of its restrictions, e.g. commercial software. You mean proprietary software. People that write free software do not want their work used in software that does not guarantee that users will have the same freedoms that they gave to others. I think the thing that a lot of people overlook here is that the proprietary software developers want to impose their own set of restrictions that are incompatible with free software. Let's not pity the poor company that cannot profit off the work of others without sharing back.
    - detaro 11y ago
      I think everyone here is aware of that, and programmers choosing GPL are free to so. You are the one that came here and chastised people for not agreeing with your license preferences.
    - _ph_ 11y ago
      As the recent years showed, most companies have no problems "sharing back" modifications of open source products. Some companies (MS, Apple) even open sourced their own developments. The problem is not sharing back. The problem is, that GPL forces the whole program to be open in source and freely shareable between people. Most commercial software cannot exist with such a business model.
    - reitanqild 11y ago
      > People that write free software do not want their work used in software that does not guarantee that users will have the same freedoms that they gave to others. Take it easy: there are plenty of people writing free software that don't care about this. antirez answered you somewhere in this thread. Then there is BSD and Apache.

Yes, it is a shame that there are so many programs out there, that do not provide good line support because of the GPL issue.

by fceller 11y ago

Yes, it is a shame that there are so many programs out there, that do not provide good line support because of the GPL issue.

davexunit 11y ago

Perhaps they should use the GPL.

fceller 11y ago
Why? I assume there are good reasons for not being GPL. Redis for example is BSD. But it cannot use readline because of it is not LGPL.
- davexunit 11y ago
  GNU Readline is GPL on purpose. It's not the GNU project's fault that Redis cannot use Readline. The Redis maintainer isn't interested in protecting user freedom with copyleft, which means that Redis has to live without Readline.
  - don71 11y ago
    Why is GPL better than BSD for example. I have the full source code of Redis and I can do any change I like. Why is copyleft per se a better solution?
    - Xophmeister 11y ago
      "Better" is subjective. The virility of the GPL gives it certain properties that a BSD license doesn't, which is important to some [many].
    - rogerbinns 11y ago
      They both give roughly the same rights and benefits when using items under the license for your own purposes. The difference is when you want to redistribute. GPL says that when you redistribute, you cannot remove the freedoms you received in the first place. BSD says you can remove those freedoms. GNU & GPL really are about freedom as in freedom of speech. They ensure items cannot get less free when redistributed. BSD etc are more about getting out of your way, so you can do almost anything you want on redistribution. Copyleft matters to those who care about freedom first. The FSF has a good explanation: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Historically RMS has been seen as a bit of an alarmist over software related freedoms. However the passage of time often shows he isn't alarmist enough! Here is a good starter article from almost 20 years ago http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
  - antirez 11y ago
    You nailed it: I pass my days writing OSS code since 1997 and ship Redis with a license that provides the end user more freedom to do whatever she/he wants, because I'm not interested in protecting the user freedom.
    - davexunit 11y ago
      This little haiku by RMS sums it up nicely: Using GPL is encroaching on our right to encroach on yours The "more" freedom you are speaking of is the freedom to choose to deny others freedom.
      - epistasis 11y ago
        Let me preface my comment by saying that the purpose of my comment is to let you know why I, an unconverted heathen, do not find your chain of comments compelling. I do not mean to convince you of my point of view, or to refute your points, but tell you why I'm unmoved. Repeating the same mantra, more forcefully, does not make it any more convincing or true. I find RMS's reasoning fundamentally flawed, overly simplistic, and though perhaps good in the short-term (less than a decade), detrimental to his stated goals over longer terms. Every couple years I revisit it, and discuss with true believers like you, and am just as unconvinced. GPL denies me and all users freedoms, and the inability of GPL supporters to even acknowledge that point tells me that politics has overtaken philosophy. The arguments for the GPL may have had more sway over me back in the 90s, but now with decades of actual data from BSD projects, I'm less than convinced that GPL offers more freedom for anybody. In fact, the exact opposite appears to be true. Politicking is a way to shut off people's brains long enough that lots of people can move in the same direction. Politicking has it's uses, but it has to stop and be reevaluated in order to make sure that his direction is correct, and that has not seemed to happen in the past few decades.
        antirez 11y ago
        Exactly, if you do an history check, GPL and similar restrictive licenses were used in the last decade a lot by companies wanting to retain control over the code, while BSD / MIT projects never incurred in the issues GPL-convinced people claimed to be the big risks, but effectively provided more freedom everybody. However to be fully honest, there is something new in the horizon now. The fact is that AWS and other similar service provides are starting to make it almost impossible for BSD projects to use the old viable business model of selling services. Now that BSD projects are "embedded" into AWS (or other) as a "just use" products where all the problems are solved by the service provider, open source as we traditionally thought at it may be a bit at risk. It's not clear to me what the fix for this is. I'm not ok with removing rights from my OSS code, but I feel there is something wrong if the value generated by OSS code is captured mostly by big players selling services.
_ph_ 11y ago
There are a lot of programs, which cannot use GPL for some of its restrictions, e.g. commercial software. But also in general, it is quite restrictive to have to change your softwares license just to use a certain library. Consequently, a lot of non-gpl open source software rather not uses readline than changing their license. I am very happy about any more liberally licensed alternative.
- davexunit 11y ago
  >There are a lot of programs, which cannot use GPL for some of its restrictions, e.g. commercial software. You mean proprietary software. People that write free software do not want their work used in software that does not guarantee that users will have the same freedoms that they gave to others. I think the thing that a lot of people overlook here is that the proprietary software developers want to impose their own set of restrictions that are incompatible with free software. Let's not pity the poor company that cannot profit off the work of others without sharing back.
  - detaro 11y ago
    I think everyone here is aware of that, and programmers choosing GPL are free to so. You are the one that came here and chastised people for not agreeing with your license preferences.
  - _ph_ 11y ago
    As the recent years showed, most companies have no problems "sharing back" modifications of open source products. Some companies (MS, Apple) even open sourced their own developments. The problem is not sharing back. The problem is, that GPL forces the whole program to be open in source and freely shareable between people. Most commercial software cannot exist with such a business model.
  - reitanqild 11y ago
    > People that write free software do not want their work used in software that does not guarantee that users will have the same freedoms that they gave to others. Take it easy: there are plenty of people writing free software that don't care about this. antirez answered you somewhere in this thread. Then there is BSD and Apache.