Comments on: On the GPL http://rc3.org/2009/07/03/on-the-gpl/ Rafe Colburn on software development (and other topics) Mon, 21 May 2012 23:52:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: daveadams http://rc3.org/2009/07/03/on-the-gpl/comment-page-1/#comment-6014 daveadams Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:27:46 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=9703#comment-6014 <p>To Thomas's question, the owner of the copyright to the code can release the same code under a different license. If Oracle wanted to merge the projects, they could, eg, release all or some subset of the ZFS code under GPL and then there's no problem. If someone else wanted to fork the last CDDL version of ZFS, they could do so under the same terms they could have the previous day. And tomorrow, Richard Stallman could make his own fork of the GPLed ZFS for GNU.</p> To Thomas’s question, the owner of the copyright to the code can release the same code under a different license. If Oracle wanted to merge the projects, they could, eg, release all or some subset of the ZFS code under GPL and then there’s no problem. If someone else wanted to fork the last CDDL version of ZFS, they could do so under the same terms they could have the previous day. And tomorrow, Richard Stallman could make his own fork of the GPLed ZFS for GNU.

]]> By: Thomas Brownback http://rc3.org/2009/07/03/on-the-gpl/comment-page-1/#comment-5993 Thomas Brownback Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:15:20 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=9703#comment-5993 <p>One of the arcane oddities I'd like to hear about the Oracle/Sun thing is the state of Btrfs and ZFS. Btrfs is licensed under the GPL and was designed by Oracle. ZFS was designed by Sun, and is licensed under the CDDL, which is derived from the MPL. Those two licenses are incompatible, such that code from the two projects can never be legally linked.</p> <p>Does this mean one project will be walled off, or both have to die, or what?</p> <p>Actually, maybe both projects have gone independent by now, I'm not really sure. But you can imagine how this merger combined with those license choices could easily lead to some odd value-destroying effects. Not simply because one license is good or another is bad, but simply because of the difficulty in crafting public licenses that play nice together, or that can adapt to changing circumstances.</p> One of the arcane oddities I’d like to hear about the Oracle/Sun thing is the state of Btrfs and ZFS. Btrfs is licensed under the GPL and was designed by Oracle. ZFS was designed by Sun, and is licensed under the CDDL, which is derived from the MPL. Those two licenses are incompatible, such that code from the two projects can never be legally linked.

Does this mean one project will be walled off, or both have to die, or what?

Actually, maybe both projects have gone independent by now, I’m not really sure. But you can imagine how this merger combined with those license choices could easily lead to some odd value-destroying effects. Not simply because one license is good or another is bad, but simply because of the difficulty in crafting public licenses that play nice together, or that can adapt to changing circumstances.

]]> By: Rafe http://rc3.org/2009/07/03/on-the-gpl/comment-page-1/#comment-5986 Rafe Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:59:41 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=9703#comment-5986 <p>Actually I'm not. Licensing code under the GPL and selling stuff are obviously not mutually incompatible. (Just ask MySQL or Red Hat.) Indeed, I read on the WordPress site today that the only components of a theme that must be released under the GPL are the parts written in PHP. The markup, images, CSS, and JavaScript can all be released under a commercial license. So this really isn't a big deal for the pros who sell WP themes.</p> Actually I’m not. Licensing code under the GPL and selling stuff are obviously not mutually incompatible. (Just ask MySQL or Red Hat.) Indeed, I read on the WordPress site today that the only components of a theme that must be released under the GPL are the parts written in PHP. The markup, images, CSS, and JavaScript can all be released under a commercial license. So this really isn’t a big deal for the pros who sell WP themes.

]]> By: Joseph Scott http://rc3.org/2009/07/03/on-the-gpl/comment-page-1/#comment-5984 Joseph Scott Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:47:52 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=9703#comment-5984 <p>Matt Haughey & Rafe -</p> <p>You are confusing licensing terms with price. Matt isn't saying that theme and plugin developers are required to give their code away for free, he's saying that they have to provide the code (when distributing it) under GPL (or compatible) terms.</p> Matt Haughey & Rafe -

You are confusing licensing terms with price. Matt isn’t saying that theme and plugin developers are required to give their code away for free, he’s saying that they have to provide the code (when distributing it) under GPL (or compatible) terms.

]]> By: Rogers Cadenhead http://rc3.org/2009/07/03/on-the-gpl/comment-page-1/#comment-5982 Rogers Cadenhead Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:05:53 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=9703#comment-5982 <p>One of the reasons WordPress was originally successful was because of its open source license. Movable Type was not open source and had alienated some in its community with the introduction of a <a href="http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/05/14/freedom-0" rel="nofollow">new licensing plan</a>, and some of its influential bloggers publicly embraced WordPress as the open alternative that couldn't be taken away from them later.</p> <p>So I don't see how WordPress could regret the decision to release under the GPL. It might not have been successful without it.</p> One of the reasons WordPress was originally successful was because of its open source license. Movable Type was not open source and had alienated some in its community with the introduction of a new licensing plan, and some of its influential bloggers publicly embraced WordPress as the open alternative that couldn’t be taken away from them later.

So I don’t see how WordPress could regret the decision to release under the GPL. It might not have been successful without it.

]]> By: Jason http://rc3.org/2009/07/03/on-the-gpl/comment-page-1/#comment-5980 Jason Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:23:44 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=9703#comment-5980 <p>The GPL says you have to provide the code at a reasonable cost (for example media cost) when it is asked for. Nothing, however, stops the person who asked for it from releasing it for free once obtained. You can do GPL software, charge money for it, and only release code to those who want it though. That being said, I'm still a BSD advocate personally.</p> The GPL says you have to provide the code at a reasonable cost (for example media cost) when it is asked for. Nothing, however, stops the person who asked for it from releasing it for free once obtained. You can do GPL software, charge money for it, and only release code to those who want it though. That being said, I’m still a BSD advocate personally.

]]> By: Rafe http://rc3.org/2009/07/03/on-the-gpl/comment-page-1/#comment-5978 Rafe Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:03:00 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=9703#comment-5978 <p>I do wonder if, at this point, forking B2 was a regrettable decision for WordPress. Regardless, I'd say that GPL advocates would regard it as a huge victory. They managed to "infect" a whole big chunk of the blogging software industry when Matt made the decision to build on top of a relatively simple piece of GPL-licensed software.</p> I do wonder if, at this point, forking B2 was a regrettable decision for WordPress. Regardless, I’d say that GPL advocates would regard it as a huge victory. They managed to “infect” a whole big chunk of the blogging software industry when Matt made the decision to build on top of a relatively simple piece of GPL-licensed software.

]]> By: Rafe http://rc3.org/2009/07/03/on-the-gpl/comment-page-1/#comment-5977 Rafe Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:01:37 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=9703#comment-5977 <blockquote> <p>If you asked me yesterday if a theme developer should legally be forced to release $100 themes freely, I’d say no way, but after reading that post it certainly looks like they should and it seems like an unintended consequence of the GPL’s legal code.</p> </blockquote> <p>Actually it's an intended consequence.</p>

If you asked me yesterday if a theme developer should legally be forced to release $100 themes freely, I’d say no way, but after reading that post it certainly looks like they should and it seems like an unintended consequence of the GPL’s legal code.

Actually it’s an intended consequence.

]]> By: Daniel Jalkut http://rc3.org/2009/07/03/on-the-gpl/comment-page-1/#comment-5976 Daniel Jalkut Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:41:46 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=9703#comment-5976 <p>You're right. I didn't simmer on my thoughts enough until after writing the post, and realizing that a subconscious subtext in my mind was that I was trying to convince people who are on the fence, not to choose GPL. Obviously, people for whom the GPL represents a great moral or political movement would not be on the fence.</p> <p>Thanks for reading and linking to the article, Daniel</p> You’re right. I didn’t simmer on my thoughts enough until after writing the post, and realizing that a subconscious subtext in my mind was that I was trying to convince people who are on the fence, not to choose GPL. Obviously, people for whom the GPL represents a great moral or political movement would not be on the fence.

Thanks for reading and linking to the article, Daniel

]]> By: daveadams http://rc3.org/2009/07/03/on-the-gpl/comment-page-1/#comment-5975 daveadams Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:36:47 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=9703#comment-5975 <p>Thank you for pointing this out. I wanted to say the same thing. The history of Unix, RMS, and the GPL should be required reading for would-be software pundits.</p> Thank you for pointing this out. I wanted to say the same thing. The history of Unix, RMS, and the GPL should be required reading for would-be software pundits.

]]>