One correction: Code under the GPL doesn't have to be made available to everyone. Just to everyone who has access to the program. So if you sell a GPL'd program you only have to make the code available to your customers.
@@jordy_vogeltjes yes that's true, his point still stands however, you can just sell the program and ship de code with it. redhat does exactly that, and centos does exactly what your saying, in fact centos stream gets the code before it gets into rhel
@@glatocha not necessarily. You do however as Brodie recently pointed out. At least pretend to make it available. th-cam.com/video/8AUNaJV6UKM/w-d-xo.html. He made a very good point that nobody to my knowledge has made.
@@BlindRambler I'm not so sure about this. (But no time to check out Brodie's video right now, and your post was a bit unclear.) An application that uses Library X is not derivative of Library X. It just uses it. Cyberpunk 2077 is not a derivative of DirectX. If DirectX was GPL'd, Cyberpunk could still use it and not have to distribute the sources of Cyberpunk itself. BUT: if DirectX was GPL'd, and the Cyberpunk devs _modified_ it into an in-house version of DirectX, then that in-house version would have to be made available, because that is a derivative work. Think of it like this: if you are a painter and buy paint and canvas, the people who made the paint and canvas cannot dictate copyright on your painting. (Though, obviously, just like DT and Brody: IANAL.)
@@NonameEthereal No there is a difference your creating a combined work if you link to GPL source code, something like a collage. And combining works is only allowed if the original license owner agrees, the license stipulates that the original owner agrees if the combined work is licensed under GPL.
@@bigpod dude gpl is far superior the cost of using gpl (having to then make your stuff gpl aswell) is FAR less than the benefits it brings (transferring the freedom you got to others that use your stuff)
@@ashwinalagiri-rajan1180 What benefits are you talking about? I've just started coding and I don't understand this license too much. I would imagine it would make it difficult if you have to make all of your open-source code available. Like I am working on a nonprofit and a bit skeptical of putting my code out there in a market full of monopolies.
Sigh, I'm going to sound somewhat rude here, and I don't mean to be rude or say that these people are stupid, but: Unfortunately those who are deep into the "GNU cult" simply can't understand this. Any time I've seen arguments over this, the "GNU cultists" (I am really rude here, but seriously, that's how they behave and speak in many cases) don't seem to grasp the concept of "freedom", at all. They really seem to think that it's only free if the freedom goes in the direction they want... Which... What? How can you be free if you're prohibited from doing as you please? It's a bit like saying "you have freedom of speech, but you can't say things I don't like"... Well then, by that definition, Stalin was VERY PRO FREE SPEECH! This should be obvious to anyone who thinks about this for a second, why would we have different words for "free" and "prohibit" if they mean the same thing, but are supposed to be opposites? They can't both be the same thing and be opposites at the same time. (English isn't my first language, sorry if that didn't make sense) I think the main problem is how we define "free", there is a big difference between: 1: The SOURCECODE must be free(ly available and modifiable). and 2: YOU are free to do as you please. If you are for freedom of people and software, then "permissive" licenses make more sense, but if you think that it's the *sourcecode* that matters, and it's the source that should be free - then yeah sure, copyleft licenses make complete sense. If the GNU people would stop misusing the word "free" in this way, or at the very least EXPLAIN it better what exactly they mean - then we wouldn't be having this discussion. At the end of the day, pick whichever license fits your project, purposes and goals. There is no right or wrong license (morally speaking). I do believe there should always be a free alternative to closed sources environments, but other than that, feel free to choose what's best for you.
@@LinucNerd I think youre actually not grasping some fundamental concepts of freedom. Lets say you have the freedom to not be punched in the nose. Now this gives you a freedom but this also inherently restricts what other people do with their fists. This is a fundamental part of many of our cherished freedoms it guarantees something to one party and restricts it to the other (usually larger or powerful) party. The GPL restricts you from using their work in something that is restricting anyone else's freedom. It is essentially just a checkmark that prevents you from doing something unethical with their work. In a perfect world the GPL license would be superfluous as everyoje would be assumed to have complete ownership over all the software they own and you would be allowed to "opt out". However if for some reason you think that users don't deserve the freedoms the GPL provides (perhaps you hate them) then you are free to use any software under a permissive license you desire.
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
Permissive licenses are not immoral, if a software developers want to open up their work for anyone to use whatever they wish (even for proprietary programs) is their right. No license is immoral, just because something doesn't agree with your viewpoint doesn't make something "immoral". We all don't have to agree with anyone's viewpoint, but the bottom line is that if you support freedom you have to support the developer's freedom as well and that includes the freedom to keep their work closed source.
The main tenet of the free software movement is that proprietary software is fundamentally immoral. While permissive licenses are not in themselves immoral, they allow developers to turn their variations into proprietary (and therefore immoral) products.
@@tiberiusmagnificuscaeser4929 So what makes proprietary software immoral? Last I checked keeping one's own work secret isn't an immoral act. People who think that way seem to fall into a kind of software communism thinking that free software is a right you have, but it's privilege that the developer grants you.
Alex Because those companies make crap products using other people’s work, do dodgy shit, and mistreat their customers? I like capitalism - people should get paid for their work, and be competing to outdo eachother. These big companies push out absolute crap, and never innovate while chomping up BSD and MIT code.
@AlexI agree that people should stop bashing these companies for making proprietary software, it's their right to keep their software proprietary. However most people bash these Microsoft, Google, and Apple for making proprietary software, but for business practices that violate privacy which is a different issue entirely. Most of the public doesn't give a crap about if something is closed source or free and open source. The only people who complain about a program being proprietary are members of the FOSS community. The FOSS community needs to stop acting like they are entitled to the source code of someone else's work, they are entitled to nothing!
@@shauno6893 However the developers allowed these companies to use their code in that manner, they had every right to use the GPL or keep their code proprietary which they chose not to do. It's not immoral for companies to use MIT or BSD licensed code because the developer gave that code out for anyone to use for any purpose. They chose not to get paid for their work, I don't have a problem with big corporations using code that is licensed in this manner because they were given permission to use it by the original developer.
Recently I started using Affero GPL (AGPL) instead of only GPL, sometimes I use MIT license (I'm not against permissive licenses, but AGPL is my choice for something I put a lot of creative effort into).
@@Master-yn6ie no. AGPL is more restrictive even then GPL itself. "It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there."
@@ilsirent9726 I don't think anybody can make any money with AGPL on the server then, so user can just clone your stuff, build it, and run it, imagine if Facebook was AGPL, LOL!
@@Master-yn6ie MongoDB was using AGPL and now they went to SSPL which if I am not mistaken forces you to reveal the code of whole your server infrastructure if you are using their product. You can make money using restrictive licenses, just sell another license to your customers. But in this case i think that you can not backport features of derivatives into your original work.
@@ilsirent9726 Wait, what you mean? I can use GPL in project, and sell with some other license to consumer? so the consumer have no right to see the code?
It's always hilarious to me watching people who are not software developers trying to proselytize GPL like it is a religion. When you're a developer, it is your decision how you choose to license your software. The idea that it would be "immoral" to do nothing more than put a signature on your work is absolutely ridiculous and could only be uttered by someone who edits config files and thinks that makes them a programmer. What you are suggesting is equivalent to saying that the laws of electrodynamics should be under license in such a way that anyone who designs a device which utilizes them must reveal how it is constructed. Physicists and mathematicians don't license equations and suggesting that programmers who don't license their code are somehow committing an immoral act is an absurd and dangerous idea. GPL zealots are trying to force others to conform to a world view which is rooted in political ideology. GPLv3 is absolute garbage and I will never choose a license for my code which compels individuals to subscribe to a political ideology in order to use it.
Well kinda... NeXTStep was built off of BSD 4.3/4.4 just like it's very close relatives FreeBSD and NetBSD. But It was a separate BSD distribution legally licensed to NeXT. Now Apple and FreeBSD "Share" a lot of code. But Apple obviously prefers MacOS and treats FreeBSD as kind-of a dumping ground repo plaything. Apple would have used BSD even if permissive licenses were never a thing.
How is a permissive license immoral? Because nobody gets to build stuff for financial gain from it? I can understand certain cases where GPL is applicable, but I would think you'd want people to be motivated to make proprietary software off your platform.
If people really want to make proprietary software based on my GPL code, perhaps I could sell them a special license for that.. but you'd have to pay me for that license. Depends on the situation.
Crucial Flow Research That makes sense. I think royalties if one is making money from the product is a fair deal. I do also understand forcing derivatives to be open-source makes sense in certain cases. Educational platforms are a compelling case in my mind.
First time (that I know of) that I've completely disagreed with DT. There's no such thing as an "immoral" software license, but if there was I'd point the finger at the GPL. "Freedom" cannot be used to describe FORCING someone else to do something they do not want to do. The GPL forces you to release your code, this is the opposite of freedom. I'm not saying it doesn't have its place and that it hasn't brought us a lot of good things, but blindly using the GPL every time when there are other licenses that actually give everyone the freedom to do whatever they want is a mistake way too many people make.
Well I agree with the part where you said there is no such thing as an immoral software license, because a developer has a right to control his work. However the GPL doesn't force anyone to release their code, because the developer chose to use that license which means they chose to release their code. The MIT and BSD licenses require that their code be released as well, however again the developer chooses to use those licenses for their work. If a developer chooses to use the GPL, they are saying "you can use my work to create something new or modify my work but you have to keep it open for the next person". Which is within the developers rights.
The point of GPL is to guarantee the freedoms to USERS of the software.. which means that users need to be able to get the source code! It's not so much catering to developers, but actually guaranteeting freedoms for end users.
@@PenguinRevolution that's incorrect, the MIT and BSD licenses do not require the source code of derivative works to be published. I recommend researching it a bit more, as you are making some false statements.
@@CrucialFlowResearch I didn't get anything incorrect and I made no false statements, you didn't mention anything about derivative works at all. You simply mentioned the source code which would remain open for the original work. Just because derivative works don't have to release their source doesn't close the original source of the project.
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.
The idea that I am somehow doing something "immoral" by just publishing my code for anyone to use as they see fit is pretty hilarious. Dude has no idea what he is talking about.
@@ziggy6698 *Laughs in Intel ME* (By using permissive lisences, you're allowing cooperation to create proprietary spyware based on your work, and you don't even get paid for it)
@@Arnob-vm4ub By not licensing Gaussian row reduction you are allowing anyone to compute the determinants of matrices! WHAT IF THEY DO SOMETHING BAD WITH IT?!?!?!? We need to license mathematics!!!
@@ziggy6698Unequivocal comparison. Math, unlike programs, don't need to be compiled into binaries to run. If you created a program and hid the source code, people could still run and use the binary. But if you said that a theorem is true, but hid the proof, no one would believe you.
@@Arnob-vm4ub You have not read the OP to which you are responding. The point is that if I write code, I have every right to share that code without restrictions and to say that is somehow immoral is to say sharing ideas is immoral.
I don't understand something. If Linux uses the GPL license, and thus all software that uses Linux must be GPL, how can Android and Chrome OS exist and not be GPL? Is Google breaking the law here, or am I missing something?
To my understanding, non-kernel android software (like the android framework, and lots of other android programs) use apache 2.0 and some other permissive licenses. They're not actually based off of linux, so Google are free to choose whatever licenses they like (more info about that here source.android.com/setup/start/licenses ). However, the actual android kernel, which *is* based off of Linux, is indeed GPL (you can see the repositories here android.googlesource.com/ ).
@@AcidiFy574 Exactly what happened with MINIX. It was under a permissive license and Intel used it to make their proprietary Management Engine, which is pretty much malware. Had it been under GPL, that would not have happened.
You wouldn't regret making a copyleft license over a permissive one, it's rather the opposite. The copyleft license which forces derivative work to have the same license doesn't apply to the creator (assuming you are the sole contributor/copyright owner, otherwise you have to abide by it as well). It doesn't apply to you because you still own the copyright and you can issue any license you want. So you can "give yourself" a license to use your own work in a closed source derivative work. You can even issue commercial licenses in exchange for money for example (this is called dual-licensing). If at some point you want to make it permissive, you can change the license to a permissive one. If you start with a permissive license however, your ownership of the copyright doesn't mean anything anymore and your work can be used in proprietary software. Changing the license to a less permissive one later is then almost pointless because you already issued the permissive ones. The permissive license is a lot less reversible, this is why you are more likely to regret not using a copyleft license.
This guy is talking like a self-righteous thug. Essentially he's saying, "My way is right because my way is right!" Permissive licenses are obviously not immoral just like giving away money to people is not immoral. This guy does not even understand the concept of morality.
There's not just one copyleft license, also there's not "the GPL", there's lots of them. Why does everyone that includes gpl code in their project has to be forced to use the gpl, even if their project is already under a copyleft license? Even different gpl versions conflicts between themselves! Imho, the gpl contradicts freedom 3: "The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others". Gpl will prohibit you to do this unless you also license your code under the gpl. It's like "you're free to do what i allow you to do" This may sound silly, but this, and that i don't agree software (a tool) can be ethical or unethical, are what made me not agree with the free software movement
The point is that the free software movement is about ensuring these freedoms for everyone, so the only duty that comes with these freedoms is that you have to exercise these freedoms in such a way that does not limit other people's ability to exercise them. The four freedoms are toothless without this crucial bit of duty, i.e., without a license like GPLv3. I am not a developer so I am not in a position to discredit the concerns of developers regarding their business, but from the point of view of freedom, GPLv3 seems very much necessary.
Imagine if you went to the store and bought a shirt only to find out that there was a license attached that said who could wear the shirt, how they can wear it, and that they can modify the shirt in anyway. This is a ridiculous situation, obviously anything you own should be completely yours and you're able to do anything you want with it. Permissive licenses in this case basically say "hey you can do anything you want with this product and wear it however you like." And thats great but imagine if someone bought out their stock, modified it, and then sold it back to the public with those horrible unfree license again that told you how you could wear your own damn clothes. Obviously this is a bad situation and goes against the spirit of the idea of freedoms the license meant to protect. The GPL basically is only trying to say "we will allow you complete freedom in the use of our product AND if you use our product in the making of another product you are not allowed to deprive anyone else of that freedom either." Its a fairly simple concept. Morally speaking I dont think anyone should be allowed to tell you what you can do with any products you own or any software on your machine so I will not allow you to use my creation to help you deprive someone of something that should be their right.
the thing is gpl isnt from focused on the developers, its focussed on the users. its tries to give all users of the software the same rights if anywhere in the chain some of those rights are restricted, not all users have the same rights anymore. ofcourse developers need to eat too so there are a lot of open source licenses out there
"Free as in freedom" Except you must do exactly as we tell you? No, GPLv3 Is not a free as in freedom software license. You literally give your copyrights to FSF. Why do you think it's called "copyleft"? It's because you have no "rights".
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.
Yes, GPL/AGPL do this all the time. The motivation for both are not to force projects to be open source, but to prevent others from monetizing the work unless the original authors of the GPL code are compensated for it. In this sense, the BSD/MIT/Apache can be seen as less greedy versions; since they give you the right to use it commercially without having to pay. And often times, even the companies who use it in a proprietary fashion like Sony's PlayStation using FreeBSD (BSD) license either contribute funds or code back to the project.
One more reason GPL isn't popular among some developers is that many big corps, such as Google, has internal ban on acquiring companies/startups which product is licenced by GPL
I think you're missing the point a little bit. The point of permissive licenses, in my opinion, is to free you from having to waste your precious time upholding your license in the case that someone violates it. I don't want to deal with any of that shit. I like writing programs, not fighting legal battles.
No one can compel you to fight a copyright battle, lol. Just use the GPL to shoo away vultures tbat might use your stuff to violate people's freedoms. You don't have to sue if you don't want to.
Good overview, but I'd hardly call permissive licenses as "immoral." GPL, especially AGPL, often result in a dual-license situation where a company will pay for a special commercialized license with GPL/AGPL software to use it closed source. So the result can be the same with the permissive licenses, just with the necessity of paying for the right to do so. One can argue that is just as immoral, if you would argue the others are also. If the argument is that software should always be open source, sorry but GPL/AGPL don't even lead to that. The motivation isn't to force open source software, it's to prevent others from making money on their work. Therefore it can be viewed as being even greedier than Apache/BSD/MIT.
Thanks for das video. I started to listen to R Stallman more and understands more the idea behind gnu and gpl and will definitely consider publishing my future software unline under GPL.
There’s a serious flaw in your argument against permissive licenses: if some big company takes the code, derives a proprietary product from it, and doesn’t contribute changes back to the original project, it does not take away people’s freedoms. The original project is still in tact, with all of the original freedoms present! What it does is create a second “thing”, with relatively less freedom than the original. Both exist, and users have a choice. If you believe all software needs to be open source, fine - but that’s a different argument. The crux of it, as a developer, is simple: what social contract do I want to offer to my users? Do I want to ensure that they give back any changes they make? Or do I not care whether they contribute changes? As an author, I have sole discretion as to the offer I want to make to others. As for me, I choose permissive licenses because I’m not going to demand that someone share changes. It’s got nothing to do with popularity, or people being afraid of GPL. I think it’s totally reasonable for someone to adopt the copyleft approach. I’m not going to knock anyone for that decision. I set the terms of how you use my code, you set the terms of how I use your code. All good. I’m glad you shared the key meaningful differences between copyleft and permissive licenses. I hope it helps developers to select the license that aligns best with their intentions and goals.
>permissive licenses are immoral >they are antithetical to the free software movement >Richard Stallman was right based takes here DT btw get some sleep man
So are you saying that if I make an app that is 99.9% my own code that I wrote myself, but I use small, GPL-licensed library, I now have to license my entire app under the GPL? If that's what you're saying then you should be able to see why developers don't want to bother with GPL at all.
@@CCRUEnthusist I apologize for the insult. But really, you still have the freedom to make whatever you want to make. Lots of open source programming languages out there. I'm not depriving anyone of their freedom by not giving them something I spent dozens or hundreds of hours on.
@@justsomeguy8385 If you want to take advantage of libre software it should be expect of you to also have your final software is also libre. There is also no reason or excuse to ever violate the four essential freedoms the GPL contains. If you choose to make software that violates those freedoms I dont want anything to do with it, that's the entire point of GPL. Essentially, dont like my freedom? Dont use my shit. Simple as.
@cpong It restricts you from restricting other's freedom. It's a pretty simple concept. If you want to restrict people's freedom then yes, you cannot use our work to do it. You're also making a false dichotomy between "proprietary" and "free". If you don't understand that you can have proprietary free software then you're mistaken.
I find myself conflicted here. On the one hand, I am passionate about FOSS and user rights. Proprietary software itself is not immoral, but the means required to defend it are--in other words, it's just a stupid idea. How can you expect to make money when your competitors are offering their own software, that does the same thing as yours, and does it better, for free? By using legalese to eliminate the competition, of course! But...that's immoral. You can't take my money in exchange for a piece of software and then demand to continue having control over it. You can decide how often I drive this car and where, or you can have my money--but not both. On the other hand, there is Voltaire's Law: you don't have to agree with someone's ideas, but if you claim to believe in freedom, then you must stand for their right to express and exercise those ideas. Calling something both "permissive" and "immoral" doesn't sound very free. FOSS is supposed to give us freedom, not take it away.
the thing is proprietary software isn't technically sold; it's rented. you rent the usage of the software. with gpl software you actually buy it you can do what you want with it, except change the license with bsd you get a the final freedom om keeping the source code to yourself. and in practice this has resulted in proprietary software making millions and gpl software being improved by 'millions' while bsd chugs-a-long ms office beats libreoffice because there a team behinf ms office that's paid full time linux beats bsd in popularity because all the source code is open, gaining attention of many developers who want to learn from the code written by others
@@fuseteam not saying license doesn't have an influence but for your examples, licensing is not the main driver. Linux was popular and accepted from the start. It was a better software that happened to have GPL. Same goes for the first statement. There is some really good open source software that happens to be licensed under gpl ( for a while gpl was the default license) and maintianed by millions. But the ppl maintaining it are not doing it because it has gpl license. Same for linux, it's not the open source trove because it has GPL...
i'm sort of confused, that you think taking bsd'ed code and use it in a proprietary project makes it an immoral action? i'm publishing under the bsd license and my intention is to not limit people in the way of how they use the software. so, i am willingly saying: it's fine to use it in a closed source project and it's not immoral to accept the offer.
i wouldn't go as far as calling it 'immoral' but i think that he is referring to the idea that you take code you didn't write out of a working project and using and improving it to your own benefit, while the original doesn't benefit from your improvements because you guard it as a trade secret
@@fuseteam well, when I am publishing under MIT, BSD, ISC or Apache2.0 it is exactly my intention to allow for that to happen. I want my code to be used everywhere, closed or open. Even if he is referring to the concept of no contributions flowing back, well, gpl just means that people have to post it somewhere publicly. So, changes flowing upstream are far from guaranteed. Try merging changes that are based in a branch that got it's git history removed and is documented in some other cryptic language or not at all and accessable publicly as a folder via ftp or as a zip without indication of the last time of change. There are many filedumps out there. Drawing up an imaginary relation between license and willingness to contribute back changes is just madness. This really looks like somebody without a clue making strong stances based on some fantasy world.
@@marcosiedentopf8203 i know they are far from guarenteed it takes quite a but to work with different version using git, this also why its also takes a lot of effort to go 'open source', something many don't appreciate. that's also why don't go as far as to say it 'immoral' its simply not as well simple as that. i do believe given it is publicly available it does increase the likelihood the improvements can flow back, either by downstream pushing or upstream pulling changes back in. i honestly believe BSD would've been much bigger if apple contributed back tho full disclosure i'm not familiar enough with all the different licenses an their subtleties to discuss them in depth
@@fuseteam Apple did contribute massively to FreeBSD. So did Sony. Typically with BSD based licensing, companies still want to stay close to the source because there are many benefits in that. Companies that are just taking the code still have to maintain it and that requires the company to be pretty large and smaller companies often end up in the mailing lists asking for help migrating their codebase. This gets devs paid xD!
@@marcosiedentopf8203 ohw interesting that sounds similar to (if not exactly like) how it ends up working on the Linux (kernel) in practice. guess i was completely wrong on it making that much of difference. this is second time BSD surprised me first time was with BSD's nvidea support
Funny thing is that companies like Apple and Sony Playstation don't even donate a penny to the FreeBSD foundation. It's the philosophy of their license unfortunatelly
Thank you for creating this video to help understand the licensing aspects. I have come across a platform that was built largely off of the functionality of NiFi which is under Apache License being an Apache project. I've even seen where this company goes out and describes features of their product which are exactly the NiFi features as if it's what they built. This struck me as unethical software development not really given credit to apache. I wasn't really not sure what to do but licensing seemed like the right starting point. I now agree the permissive licenses are immoral. This company in my opinion cheating people. Both the open source community and the buyers of the platform. In reality largely what they are building should be done in the open source community and not using it with a thing veil covering it to scam people out of money.
Personally I license projects that I don't care about (small programs, like my own dwm-status utility) under the MIT-license. If I care about a project it will be licensed under the GPL.
I must say I find it a little odd that, for example, a license like the MIT license is not considered a copy left licence as it requires you to include the original copy right clause in derived works and does not specify if it applies only to the original code or also the modified parts of the work. Seems to me it could possibly be a copy left licence, but who knows as it is not clearly defined in the text.
I am capitalist ( more like social democracy "wing", but It does not matter here luls) so for me something being not restrictive is not so unethical. Everyone should be able to distribute your software in the manner that one wants. I'ts ok. I like MIT license as I like GNU.
Can someone help me I got a friend thats a burnout and keeps telling me to read my Apache 2.0 agreement i told him like 9 times I don’t have it and it’s taking like a week to break his gibberish down and to put the puzzle together. Now he’s telling me there giving him 50% of some thing he claimed he made a patent for. I’m not saying he can’t do it, but he’s a kind of a magoo and hard to believe he could create something like that. I’m just looking for a little insight or if he’s just cracked out
Did you write in your description licences X betray licences Y movement, well that's because they have their own X licenced movements and don't care about Stallman but you like him would like that everyone submit to idea X
I cannot agree with any of the licences - but perhaps the BSD is more sound. The GPL "demands" you licence derivitives under GPL. I would call that restrictive on freedom. It is forcing conditions on code which is just an idea. Ideas unlike physical resources cannot be owned, and therefore people cannot put conditions on an idea. DT writes it is restrictive of freedom to allow freedom. What? This is a bit like saying you have to curb free will or curb free speech to ensure the protection of free will and free speech! From my (admittedly wrong perhaps) understanding of the BSD licence, it does not condone the use of code in proprietary software but rather stays out of the argument. eg. I could sell you a kitchen knife but it is not on me whether you use that knife creatively to cook - or if you violate anothers right to life by stabbing them to death. The BSD is neutral. There are already moral laws for aggression. All this said, I need to look into Creative Commons more. This may be the best option. In a world where proprietary software is the default, all these licences are useful though. Even patenting an idea so another does not patent it, in order to keep if free, has some merit. The point is to not initiate force against others which is the threat of proprietary licences.
"I think permissive licenses are immoral" "I think Richard Stallman was right" R. Stallman has an essay outlining why he think permissive licenses are *not* immoral, too lazy to link it now tho.
As long as a permissive license does not violate the 4 principles of free software, I guess RS will not think it's immoral, otherwise, I'd expected him to think so
I'm interested to know How does BSD license work in SAAS context (Public or private cloud) when we develop proprietary software product from open source BSD license
BSD grants permission to use it any way you want, nobody even has to know how its used. Sony's PlayStation 4 used FreeBSD (BSD) license as the base for its OS. The only license I know which restricts SaaS is the AGPL license, which specifically declares even use over a network is considered distribution (which the GPL does not).
GPL2 is the reason the 'Linux is Cancer' remark was made. Also, permisive licenses aren't antithetical to the open source 'movement', they are antithetical to Stallman's 'free' software movement that adopted the term 'open source' earlier this century. 'Open source' is a term invented by companies that needed security, 'free' is Stallman all the way. If anything the adoption of 'open source' by groups that align with Stallman's philosophy represent a perversion of both their philosophy and of the original way corporations used 'open source'. EDIT. Also, before I forget, Linux owns around 2% of the desktop market, BSD owns around 15% in the form of MACs. I'd say it's working great.
@@Waking_Abyssal Notice how i said nothing about chrome os but commented on your inclusion of Android? Want to know why? Because I already knew that. Also, Macs aren't just based on FreeBSD, they're certified UNIX. Which is technically more then either BSD or Linux.
@@Waking_Abyssal I never claimed they used the freebsd kernel - you are literally strawmanign me with that. I claimed they were technically BSD. Which isn't wrong based on bsd's permisive licence. This is the same bullshit argument I've heard about why Android isn't "real" linux because google changed the Kernel. Well, excuse me, but isn't that the whole point of Open Source? That everybody can do whatever the heck they want with the source code? If both FreeBSD and NetBSD can claim to be BSD then there's literally no reason why the same claim can't be made about Darwin, iOS, MacOS from Apple. Just because they're made by a big corporation doesn't mean they stop being BSD. The same with Android and Linux. As long as the Linux kernel is open source, and as long as literally every single distro out there uses a modified version of the kernel - because frankly, they all do, even if it's just one or two kernel modules not in the official release - you can't claim android isn't Linux because you personally disagree with the changes Google made. Same with apple and their changes to the FreeBSD kernel code. Here, read this: www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html Especially the "[...] *with* or without *modification* [...]" part.
"You can make money" is almost like I can stand in the middle of a park and charge people walking by to move out of their way. Why would anyone pay if they can just walk around my me.
The problem from a business perspective on GPL licenses is that you can't make much on selling it. Sure, you can sell support, however selling the software itself is different. You absolutely can sell it, but how many people are going to buy it until some just get the source and distribute to others for free. There goes your profits.
I love that Linux is free as in cost. I like free things, however I am also a realist and understand that people want to be successful entrepreneurs around selling a product that a lot of work/investment was put into.
That's why GPL projects often offer secondary commercial license giving corporations the right to use it in closed source. So it really doesn't prevent the "problem" with permissive licenses claimed in this video, it just offers an alternate route.
hi DT, I want to use this video of yours - as a part of one of my videos. Can I? Please let me know... I'll not be editing your video in any way. Probably I'll cut the last few seconds of the video. That's it. And ya, I'll be sharing my video with you - once it's ready. What do you say? Please do let me know... :)
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.
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.
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.
this is the reason actually more hardware runs with freebsd based systems rather than with linux kernels (mac os, playstation, ontap (netapp) to just name a few)
MIT license is the best in my opinion since it allows companies to integrate their proprietary software into open source software easily i am pretty sure a lot of companies want to release some addons for Blender but because of its license they don't after all its their software and they shouldn't be forced to open source their code
The philosophical difference is older than software. Is a land where kidnapping is allowed more or less free? Permissive licenses say it is more free to allow kidnapping Copyleft licenses say it is less free to allow kidnapping
The only problem with GPL is the copyright dread that copyright imposes. And that's where this entire "viral license" comes from. I had times where asking someone why GPL, they didn't say it's because they want the good stuff copyleft offers, but they said "I did it because one of my dependency libraries was GPL". So, practically, an entire consequential forking is GPL'd. If suddenly GPL did not apply to the "original code that simply runs ON TOP OF GPL", then you'd see tons of projects suddenly becoming nonGPL. That's the problem. GPL is a choice, but what if it's not my choice? Why does my contribution have to be GPL and not something that could help someone else? And I agree with this entire "We should know what's in our software so it's not spying on us", but why not instead extend and expand fair use and rights to repair and consumer protection rights so that everyone can reverse engineer and audit whatever they have without the need of ANY LICENSE OR ANY PATENTS OR ANY DMCA LEGALISM? That is where GPL just flops by adding an extra layer of worry on top of all of this. Surely, GPL has saved the code in the 90s from being stolen by big tech corporations, but that's the same as a firefighter saving a building and granting himself the right to burn everything down again. The only stupidity of copyright, copyleft and even copycenter is the existential dread of having to ask and negotiate with someone just to use something. Software should be free as childhood, free as a piece of paper, free as a language, free as in "No sociopolitical doomship (doom=bull; p=t)!". There.
In an ideal world GPL should not be a choice. You should not be able to choose to violate your software user's freedoms. People that support the GPL view the four freedoms as essential positive freedoms which should be garenteed to all software users. This is in the same way the constitution gives you the positive freedom to not let your freedom of speech be violated by police or courts. So the real question is "why doesn't GPL let me have my freedom?" its "why do you think its okay to use my work to deprive people of their fundamental freedoms?"
@@CCRUEnthusist Because this "fundamental freedom" requires me to deobfuscate and explain and document my code how everyone can read instead of programming however the hell I want, and also, in an ideal world, GPL would not be needed because instead of disclosing the source code, you could just reverse engineer my code, and the software user's freedom would be protected by the freedom to reverse engineer all code no matter what. It's like with the ROM hacking scene and the asset ripping meme culture. Look up Source Filmmaker. Look up fan fiction. Look up deviantART. Nobody cares about copyright. Heck, people say "X belongs to Y, drawn by Z, colored by Q, do not steal" thinking that copyright is all about credit; they don't even know that software must have a license to even be used. EULA is just some boring text. And whether it's my beloved MIT license or this GPL license which started the open-source movement, they're still ironically EULAs. I don't have to sign an EULA when I use pen and paper, but why do I need to do so for software? People hate politics; look at Minneapolis; look at the news; nobody wants any! Sure, GPL promises freedom, but it also has conditions. It's a hotpatch over a broken law of copyright. An effective one, but still enough political to be hated alongside everything. To make you feel better, some people tell me they don't care about licenses when I ask them what license their code is. Nobody cares!
Ok so does that mean i can build a program around an MIT licensed library and license my program under GPL? Also i think i need to pay more attention to licenses from now on, until now i have been "I see Opensource i like!". ..
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.
So it's the developer's fault, who decided to create software and release it for free, and not the company's fault, that decided not to open source their code in order to (most likely) make more money. Nice. Why would you defend the big corporation, whose sole purpose is to make money, and blame the developer, who is giving his time and knowledge for free? If the big corp really cared about people with special needs, they would open source their program. But they won't, because it would mean that they wouldn't be able to win as much money by selling their product, they wouldn't be able to force users to pay for updates or bug fixes, they wouldn't be able to harvest user data.
The monitor off camera? Typically, that monitor is dedicated to OBS (used to record my videos), a file manager (to make sure when I hit record in OBS, that it is actually recording), and a terminal. The middle monitor is the one I typically record the screen when I do my tutorial type videos. The far right monitor usually has a web browser on it.
Saying all derivatives must be GPL means that you can't use a library that is GPL at the same time as another library that uses some LPG copyleft license.
My understanding is you cannot even use GPL with GPL unless they happen to be the exact same version of GPL. Copy Left is just proprietary software with an honors system and lawyers.
while free software can be sold......not many FOSS developers have an income build on FOSS software sadly. makes me wonder; what do we need to enable FOSS devs to make a living from FOSS software
If it's a small utility or game or whatever, I'll keep using the MIT. If it's a bigger program, then I would definitively consider the GPL, or even a proprietary licence at that point.
You can trade with Mr romio strategies,his the best ever known on bit coin forex trade crypto,coinbase and others and try to hurry up because time is money,money is life,life is beautiful❤🤣😂.
You can trade with Mr romio strategies,his the best ever known on bit coin forex trade crypto,coinbase and others and try to hurry up because time is money,money is life,life is beautiful❤🤣😂.
Permissive licenses are freedom, keep your stallman hands away from them and don’t judge the morality of people because of that it’s a ducking freedom and people license whatever they want! 😡
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.
That's not correct, copy-left licenses could be viewed as taking away freedom as they take away the freedom. That's the other side of the coin. Forced freedom isn't freedom at all.
@@PenguinRevolution , freedom to deny freedom to others is "a" freedom but not a freedom that frees. I don't mind paying for software, support for software, or donating. I buy System76 hardware and use Pop!_OS. I truly believe all aspects of computing would improve by theco-operation and advancement allowed by Libre licensing.
@@AnzanHoshinRoshi I guess you missed my point, it's not paying for software that I find objectionable, also I don't find the GPL objectionable either. However this attitude of my selecting one way of licensing and calling everything else immoral, or one philosophy and calling everything else immoral is acting like a dictator. Also if you are denying other freedom isn't freedom that is also acting like a dictator as well. However a creator has the right to control their work which is why I don't consider any license immoral including proprietary licenses. They have the freedom to keep their work closed source, just like you have the freedom not to use software that is proprietary. That is true freedom.
@@AnzanHoshinRoshi One needs to distinguish between two concepts: Liberty and Freedom. Liberty is the right to not be aggressed against. Freedom exists within the realm of liberty. You may have the liberty to read a certain book, that is, it is not banned. You then have the freedom to read that book. This does not mean you demand to read it! It simply means nobody is actively stopping you -but you still have to purchase the book (or receive it as a gift). If you say you have a right to read it, that means somebody has to supply it to you without there consent - which is a violation of their liberty. The GPL demands that you share! Nobody should be forced to share. The only thing we owe other is non-aggression. If somebody else discovers your idea, good for them. You do not have the right to decry their use of the idea.
What about a custom app that was written for a particular organization? You don't want the source code of such an app to be made generally available since it will contain private information that is specific to the organization.
Sometimes I play a video a little just so it will stop showing up in my recommendations, for example that lady who was attacked by a monkey, This video is another one.
4 ปีที่แล้ว
Unfortunately, there is almost no way to enforce the GPL. I remember Stallman talking about some DVD player used code licensed under GPL in their proprietary "digital handcuff" software and there was no way to sue them. Unfortunately, I can't remember the exact details of that specific case. If someone knows the details, and happens to read this comment, please reply and let me know.
If free software isn't about price, why is everyone who makes free software poor? It's always some small hobby project that make crap software and defend poor functionality with their moral high ground about how free it is.
Lifeless web user crap software? Buddy most fucking servers out there run some form of Linux. Android phones use the Linux kernel. MacOS is based on a BSD. Firefox, The Tor Browser Bundle, VLC, Stellarium, GnuPG and Thunderbird are all FOSS.
@@bigfly1391 Yeah, Mac uses BSD, it USES BSD but it's not BSD, it's MacOS that uses BSD. Most of those apps you mentioned aren't even used for real work. They are good but they are completly pedestrian. It's just simple shit that's not that difficult to make. You can't make good software that is funded by donations.
i doubt permissive licenses are immoral and I would submit when there are times when they are good and times when they are bad. That said, I noticed in your description box that you listed the video editor you use and I've never heard of it so I think I'm going to give it a try.
The lawful realm is rooted in Torah, while the legal realm is rooted in Talmud, the latter incorporating the commercial codification of the Babylonian master/slave relation through the Law Merchant, and Roman Civil Code. Most Constitutions are styled in Roman Civil Code, also including the corporate 1871 CONSTITUTION. Land of the free in a pig's eye. License is rooted in the Church of Rome custom of paying for permission to sin. All actions and transactions that attach commercial value whether by omission or commission, intent or accident feed the vampiric ruling class that regards us as expendable useless eaters. The only way to win is to not play.
One correction: Code under the GPL doesn't have to be made available to everyone. Just to everyone who has access to the program. So if you sell a GPL'd program you only have to make the code available to your customers.
@@jordy_vogeltjes yes that's true, his point still stands however, you can just sell the program and ship de code with it. redhat does exactly that, and centos does exactly what your saying, in fact centos stream gets the code before it gets into rhel
So you mean, if I use GPL licenses libraries for our internal tools, that we are not selling I would not need to publish the code?
@@glatocha not necessarily. You do however as Brodie recently pointed out. At least pretend to make it available. th-cam.com/video/8AUNaJV6UKM/w-d-xo.html. He made a very good point that nobody to my knowledge has made.
@@BlindRambler I'm not so sure about this. (But no time to check out Brodie's video right now, and your post was a bit unclear.)
An application that uses Library X is not derivative of Library X. It just uses it. Cyberpunk 2077 is not a derivative of DirectX. If DirectX was GPL'd, Cyberpunk could still use it and not have to distribute the sources of Cyberpunk itself.
BUT: if DirectX was GPL'd, and the Cyberpunk devs _modified_ it into an in-house version of DirectX, then that in-house version would have to be made available, because that is a derivative work.
Think of it like this: if you are a painter and buy paint and canvas, the people who made the paint and canvas cannot dictate copyright on your painting.
(Though, obviously, just like DT and Brody: IANAL.)
@@NonameEthereal No there is a difference your creating a combined work if you link to GPL source code, something like a collage. And combining works is only allowed if the original license owner agrees, the license stipulates that the original owner agrees if the combined work is licensed under GPL.
I have never really understand these licenses until this video. I am now deciding to use GPL license on my dmenufm! Thank you DT!
This is important. Thank you for choosing GPL.
@@bigpod shut up retard
@@bigpod dude gpl is far superior the cost of using gpl (having to then make your stuff gpl aswell) is FAR less than the benefits it brings (transferring the freedom you got to others that use your stuff)
@@ashwinalagiri-rajan1180 What benefits are you talking about? I've just started coding and I don't understand this license too much. I would imagine it would make it difficult if you have to make all of your open-source code available. Like I am working on a nonprofit and a bit skeptical of putting my code out there in a market full of monopolies.
@@bigpod there is the AGPL if you wanna make software for servers
You must be kidding. FREE should imply NO RESTRICTIONS.
Sigh, I'm going to sound somewhat rude here, and I don't mean to be rude or say that these people are stupid, but:
Unfortunately those who are deep into the "GNU cult" simply can't understand this.
Any time I've seen arguments over this, the "GNU cultists" (I am really rude here, but seriously, that's how they behave and speak in many cases) don't seem to grasp the concept of "freedom", at all.
They really seem to think that it's only free if the freedom goes in the direction they want... Which... What?
How can you be free if you're prohibited from doing as you please?
It's a bit like saying "you have freedom of speech, but you can't say things I don't like"... Well then, by that definition, Stalin was VERY PRO FREE SPEECH!
This should be obvious to anyone who thinks about this for a second, why would we have different words for "free" and "prohibit" if they mean the same thing, but are supposed to be opposites? They can't both be the same thing and be opposites at the same time.
(English isn't my first language, sorry if that didn't make sense)
I think the main problem is how we define "free", there is a big difference between:
1: The SOURCECODE must be free(ly available and modifiable).
and
2: YOU are free to do as you please.
If you are for freedom of people and software, then "permissive" licenses make more sense, but if you think that it's the *sourcecode* that matters, and it's the source that should be free - then yeah sure, copyleft licenses make complete sense.
If the GNU people would stop misusing the word "free" in this way, or at the very least EXPLAIN it better what exactly they mean - then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
At the end of the day, pick whichever license fits your project, purposes and goals.
There is no right or wrong license (morally speaking).
I do believe there should always be a free alternative to closed sources environments, but other than that, feel free to choose what's best for you.
@@LinucNerd I think youre actually not grasping some fundamental concepts of freedom. Lets say you have the freedom to not be punched in the nose. Now this gives you a freedom but this also inherently restricts what other people do with their fists. This is a fundamental part of many of our cherished freedoms it guarantees something to one party and restricts it to the other (usually larger or powerful) party.
The GPL restricts you from using their work in something that is restricting anyone else's freedom. It is essentially just a checkmark that prevents you from doing something unethical with their work. In a perfect world the GPL license would be superfluous as everyoje would be assumed to have complete ownership over all the software they own and you would be allowed to "opt out".
However if for some reason you think that users don't deserve the freedoms the GPL provides (perhaps you hate them) then you are free to use any software under a permissive license you desire.
I usually license software tools under GPL, and libraries under permissive licenses
Why is so Mr?
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
Tbh it's based on a persons personality. Some like it, some hate it!
Nothing beats the simplicity of the zlib license.
So what about binary blobs in the kernel?
Permissive licenses are not immoral, if a software developers want to open up their work for anyone to use whatever they wish (even for proprietary programs) is their right. No license is immoral, just because something doesn't agree with your viewpoint doesn't make something "immoral". We all don't have to agree with anyone's viewpoint, but the bottom line is that if you support freedom you have to support the developer's freedom as well and that includes the freedom to keep their work closed source.
The main tenet of the free software movement is that proprietary software is fundamentally immoral. While permissive licenses are not in themselves immoral, they allow developers to turn their variations into proprietary (and therefore immoral) products.
@@tiberiusmagnificuscaeser4929 So what makes proprietary software immoral? Last I checked keeping one's own work secret isn't an immoral act. People who think that way seem to fall into a kind of software communism thinking that free software is a right you have, but it's privilege that the developer grants you.
Alex Because those companies make crap products using other people’s work, do dodgy shit, and mistreat their customers? I like capitalism - people should get paid for their work, and be competing to outdo eachother. These big companies push out absolute crap, and never innovate while chomping up BSD and MIT code.
@AlexI agree that people should stop bashing these companies for making proprietary software, it's their right to keep their software proprietary. However most people bash these Microsoft, Google, and Apple for making proprietary software, but for business practices that violate privacy which is a different issue entirely. Most of the public doesn't give a crap about if something is closed source or free and open source. The only people who complain about a program being proprietary are members of the FOSS community. The FOSS community needs to stop acting like they are entitled to the source code of someone else's work, they are entitled to nothing!
@@shauno6893 However the developers allowed these companies to use their code in that manner, they had every right to use the GPL or keep their code proprietary which they chose not to do. It's not immoral for companies to use MIT or BSD licensed code because the developer gave that code out for anyone to use for any purpose. They chose not to get paid for their work, I don't have a problem with big corporations using code that is licensed in this manner because they were given permission to use it by the original developer.
Recently I started using Affero GPL (AGPL) instead of only GPL, sometimes I use MIT license (I'm not against permissive licenses, but AGPL is my choice for something I put a lot of creative effort into).
What is difference between AGPL and GPL? does it allow you not to share source code?
@@Master-yn6ie no. AGPL is more restrictive even then GPL itself.
"It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there."
@@ilsirent9726 I don't think anybody can make any money with AGPL on the server then, so user can just clone your stuff, build it, and run it, imagine if Facebook was AGPL, LOL!
@@Master-yn6ie MongoDB was using AGPL and now they went to SSPL which if I am not mistaken forces you to reveal the code of whole your server infrastructure if you are using their product. You can make money using restrictive licenses, just sell another license to your customers. But in this case i think that you can not backport features of derivatives into your original work.
@@ilsirent9726 Wait, what you mean? I can use GPL in project, and sell with some other license to consumer? so the consumer have no right to see the code?
Licenses that allow any user to do what they want with the code are not immoral and if you think otherwise you have strange morals
no wtfpl; the only true licence
It's always hilarious to me watching people who are not software developers trying to proselytize GPL like it is a religion.
When you're a developer, it is your decision how you choose to license your software. The idea that it would be "immoral" to do nothing more than put a signature on your work is absolutely ridiculous and could only be uttered by someone who edits config files and thinks that makes them a programmer.
What you are suggesting is equivalent to saying that the laws of electrodynamics should be under license in such a way that anyone who designs a device which utilizes them must reveal how it is constructed.
Physicists and mathematicians don't license equations and suggesting that programmers who don't license their code are somehow committing an immoral act is an absurd and dangerous idea. GPL zealots are trying to force others to conform to a world view which is rooted in political ideology. GPLv3 is absolute garbage and I will never choose a license for my code which compels individuals to subscribe to a political ideology in order to use it.
And where's the freedom to do not share de code?
Intelectual property shouldn't exist.
Read "Against Intellectual Property"
Book by Stephan Kinsella
This is something we definitely agree on. Permissive licenses are the reason we have crApple, which abused the BSD and created all those abominations
I'm not sure if you're talking about their OS or the company in general but Apple built their BSD OS in 2000
Well kinda... NeXTStep was built off of BSD 4.3/4.4 just like it's very close relatives FreeBSD and NetBSD. But It was a separate BSD distribution legally licensed to NeXT. Now Apple and FreeBSD "Share" a lot of code. But Apple obviously prefers MacOS and treats FreeBSD as kind-of a dumping ground repo plaything. Apple would have used BSD even if permissive licenses were never a thing.
Kind of. Apple's Darwin project is open source though
How is a permissive license immoral? Because nobody gets to build stuff for financial gain from it? I can understand certain cases where GPL is applicable, but I would think you'd want people to be motivated to make proprietary software off your platform.
If people really want to make proprietary software based on my GPL code, perhaps I could sell them a special license for that.. but you'd have to pay me for that license. Depends on the situation.
Crucial Flow Research That makes sense. I think royalties if one is making money from the product is a fair deal. I do also understand forcing derivatives to be open-source makes sense in certain cases. Educational platforms are a compelling case in my mind.
So, if Android is based on Linux and Linux is licensed under the GPL, then Android is also licensed under the GPL?
Look up the AOSP
First time (that I know of) that I've completely disagreed with DT. There's no such thing as an "immoral" software license, but if there was I'd point the finger at the GPL. "Freedom" cannot be used to describe FORCING someone else to do something they do not want to do. The GPL forces you to release your code, this is the opposite of freedom. I'm not saying it doesn't have its place and that it hasn't brought us a lot of good things, but blindly using the GPL every time when there are other licenses that actually give everyone the freedom to do whatever they want is a mistake way too many people make.
Well I agree with the part where you said there is no such thing as an immoral software license, because a developer has a right to control his work. However the GPL doesn't force anyone to release their code, because the developer chose to use that license which means they chose to release their code. The MIT and BSD licenses require that their code be released as well, however again the developer chooses to use those licenses for their work. If a developer chooses to use the GPL, they are saying "you can use my work to create something new or modify my work but you have to keep it open for the next person". Which is within the developers rights.
The point of GPL is to guarantee the freedoms to USERS of the software.. which means that users need to be able to get the source code! It's not so much catering to developers, but actually guaranteeting freedoms for end users.
@@CrucialFlowResearch You can accomplish the same thing with the MIT or the BSD license.
@@PenguinRevolution that's incorrect, the MIT and BSD licenses do not require the source code of derivative works to be published. I recommend researching it a bit more, as you are making some false statements.
@@CrucialFlowResearch I didn't get anything incorrect and I made no false statements, you didn't mention anything about derivative works at all. You simply mentioned the source code which would remain open for the original work. Just because derivative works don't have to release their source doesn't close the original source of the project.
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.
The idea that I am somehow doing something "immoral" by just publishing my code for anyone to use as they see fit is pretty hilarious. Dude has no idea what he is talking about.
@@ziggy6698 *Laughs in Intel ME*
(By using permissive lisences, you're allowing cooperation to create proprietary spyware based on your work, and you don't even get paid for it)
@@Arnob-vm4ub By not licensing Gaussian row reduction you are allowing anyone to compute the determinants of matrices! WHAT IF THEY DO SOMETHING BAD WITH IT?!?!?!? We need to license mathematics!!!
@@ziggy6698Unequivocal comparison. Math, unlike programs, don't need to be compiled into binaries to run. If you created a program and hid the source code, people could still run and use the binary. But if you said that a theorem is true, but hid the proof, no one would believe you.
@@Arnob-vm4ub You have not read the OP to which you are responding. The point is that if I write code, I have every right to share that code without restrictions and to say that is somehow immoral is to say sharing ideas is immoral.
Permissive license is not immoral, a developer uses whatever license is appropriate.
@Gregory Thaumaturgus He understands, and agrees with that ideology.
I don't understand something. If Linux uses the GPL license, and thus all software that uses Linux must be GPL, how can Android and Chrome OS exist and not be GPL? Is Google breaking the law here, or am I missing something?
To my understanding, non-kernel android software (like the android framework, and lots of other android programs) use apache 2.0 and some other permissive licenses. They're not actually based off of linux, so Google are free to choose whatever licenses they like (more info about that here source.android.com/setup/start/licenses ). However, the actual android kernel, which *is* based off of Linux, is indeed GPL (you can see the repositories here android.googlesource.com/ ).
Only the kernel needs to be GPLd which it in fact is in the case of android
I chose the MIT license for my project, because i just want it to be foss, and don’t want to regret the copyleft later.
Sure, why not then don't be surprised when big tech leaches from you
@@AcidiFy574 Exactly what happened with MINIX. It was under a permissive license and Intel used it to make their proprietary Management Engine, which is pretty much malware. Had it been under GPL, that would not have happened.
You wouldn't regret making a copyleft license over a permissive one, it's rather the opposite.
The copyleft license which forces derivative work to have the same license doesn't apply to the creator (assuming you are the sole contributor/copyright owner, otherwise you have to abide by it as well). It doesn't apply to you because you still own the copyright and you can issue any license you want. So you can "give yourself" a license to use your own work in a closed source derivative work. You can even issue commercial licenses in exchange for money for example (this is called dual-licensing).
If at some point you want to make it permissive, you can change the license to a permissive one.
If you start with a permissive license however, your ownership of the copyright doesn't mean anything anymore and your work can be used in proprietary software. Changing the license to a less permissive one later is then almost pointless because you already issued the permissive ones.
The permissive license is a lot less reversible, this is why you are more likely to regret not using a copyleft license.
Looks like permissive licenses better match libraries and gpl - applications
This guy is talking like a self-righteous thug. Essentially he's saying, "My way is right because my way is right!" Permissive licenses are obviously not immoral just like giving away money to people is not immoral. This guy does not even understand the concept of morality.
There's not just one copyleft license, also there's not "the GPL", there's lots of them. Why does everyone that includes gpl code in their project has to be forced to use the gpl, even if their project is already under a copyleft license? Even different gpl versions conflicts between themselves!
Imho, the gpl contradicts freedom 3: "The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others". Gpl will prohibit you to do this unless you also license your code under the gpl. It's like "you're free to do what i allow you to do"
This may sound silly, but this, and that i don't agree software (a tool) can be ethical or unethical, are what made me not agree with the free software movement
Consider using the part of the code that is under GPL as a statically linked library and then license your share under whatever license you fancy.
The point is that the free software movement is about ensuring these freedoms for everyone, so the only duty that comes with these freedoms is that you have to exercise these freedoms in such a way that does not limit other people's ability to exercise them. The four freedoms are toothless without this crucial bit of duty, i.e., without a license like GPLv3. I am not a developer so I am not in a position to discredit the concerns of developers regarding their business, but from the point of view of freedom, GPLv3 seems very much necessary.
I have the same feeling: free to do what I want you to do...hehe
The best is MIT and other very non restrictive licenses.
Imagine if you went to the store and bought a shirt only to find out that there was a license attached that said who could wear the shirt, how they can wear it, and that they can modify the shirt in anyway. This is a ridiculous situation, obviously anything you own should be completely yours and you're able to do anything you want with it. Permissive licenses in this case basically say "hey you can do anything you want with this product and wear it however you like." And thats great but imagine if someone bought out their stock, modified it, and then sold it back to the public with those horrible unfree license again that told you how you could wear your own damn clothes. Obviously this is a bad situation and goes against the spirit of the idea of freedoms the license meant to protect. The GPL basically is only trying to say "we will allow you complete freedom in the use of our product AND if you use our product in the making of another product you are not allowed to deprive anyone else of that freedom either." Its a fairly simple concept. Morally speaking I dont think anyone should be allowed to tell you what you can do with any products you own or any software on your machine so I will not allow you to use my creation to help you deprive someone of something that should be their right.
the thing is gpl isnt from focused on the developers, its focussed on the users. its tries to give all users of the software the same rights if anywhere in the chain some of those rights are restricted, not all users have the same rights anymore. ofcourse developers need to eat too so there are a lot of open source licenses out there
"Free as in freedom" Except you must do exactly as we tell you? No, GPLv3 Is not a free as in freedom software license. You literally give your copyrights to FSF. Why do you think it's called "copyleft"? It's because you have no "rights".
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.
Yes, GPL/AGPL do this all the time. The motivation for both are not to force projects to be open source, but to prevent others from monetizing the work unless the original authors of the GPL code are compensated for it. In this sense, the BSD/MIT/Apache can be seen as less greedy versions; since they give you the right to use it commercially without having to pay. And often times, even the companies who use it in a proprietary fashion like Sony's PlayStation using FreeBSD (BSD) license either contribute funds or code back to the project.
One more reason GPL isn't popular among some developers is that many big corps, such as Google, has internal ban on acquiring companies/startups which product is licenced by GPL
Because they don't want to get sued
what about linux the kernel?
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 any kernel modifications have to be released.
Ye but imagine Google would suddenly have to go open source for using a library under GPL. That's why they do that
@@unsafecast3636 that's why Google doesn't do that
I think you're missing the point a little bit. The point of permissive licenses, in my opinion, is to free you from having to waste your precious time upholding your license in the case that someone violates it. I don't want to deal with any of that shit. I like writing programs, not fighting legal battles.
No one can compel you to fight a copyright battle, lol. Just use the GPL to shoo away vultures tbat might use your stuff to violate people's freedoms. You don't have to sue if you don't want to.
Hey, man big companies leach off of open source technology; but you can't do that with their s
Good overview, but I'd hardly call permissive licenses as "immoral." GPL, especially AGPL, often result in a dual-license situation where a company will pay for a special commercialized license with GPL/AGPL software to use it closed source. So the result can be the same with the permissive licenses, just with the necessity of paying for the right to do so. One can argue that is just as immoral, if you would argue the others are also. If the argument is that software should always be open source, sorry but GPL/AGPL don't even lead to that. The motivation isn't to force open source software, it's to prevent others from making money on their work. Therefore it can be viewed as being even greedier than Apache/BSD/MIT.
Thanks for das video. I started to listen to R Stallman more and understands more the idea behind gnu and gpl and will definitely consider publishing my future software unline under GPL.
There’s a serious flaw in your argument against permissive licenses: if some big company takes the code, derives a proprietary product from it, and doesn’t contribute changes back to the original project, it does not take away people’s freedoms. The original project is still in tact, with all of the original freedoms present! What it does is create a second “thing”, with relatively less freedom than the original. Both exist, and users have a choice. If you believe all software needs to be open source, fine - but that’s a different argument.
The crux of it, as a developer, is simple: what social contract do I want to offer to my users? Do I want to ensure that they give back any changes they make? Or do I not care whether they contribute changes? As an author, I have sole discretion as to the offer I want to make to others.
As for me, I choose permissive licenses because I’m not going to demand that someone share changes. It’s got nothing to do with popularity, or people being afraid of GPL. I think it’s totally reasonable for someone to adopt the copyleft approach. I’m not going to knock anyone for that decision. I set the terms of how you use my code, you set the terms of how I use your code. All good.
I’m glad you shared the key meaningful differences between copyleft and permissive licenses. I hope it helps developers to select the license that aligns best with their intentions and goals.
public domain is the only real "free" software
>permissive licenses are immoral
>they are antithetical to the free software movement
>Richard Stallman was right
based takes here DT
btw get some sleep man
So are you saying that if I make an app that is 99.9% my own code that I wrote myself, but I use small, GPL-licensed library, I now have to license my entire app under the GPL? If that's what you're saying then you should be able to see why developers don't want to bother with GPL at all.
Why would you not want your code to use a GPL license? Do you want to deprive someone of their freedoms?
@@CCRUEnthusist I apologize for the insult. But really, you still have the freedom to make whatever you want to make. Lots of open source programming languages out there. I'm not depriving anyone of their freedom by not giving them something I spent dozens or hundreds of hours on.
@@justsomeguy8385 If you want to take advantage of libre software it should be expect of you to also have your final software is also libre.
There is also no reason or excuse to ever violate the four essential freedoms the GPL contains. If you choose to make software that violates those freedoms I dont want anything to do with it, that's the entire point of GPL.
Essentially, dont like my freedom? Dont use my shit. Simple as.
@cpong It restricts you from restricting other's freedom. It's a pretty simple concept. If you want to restrict people's freedom then yes, you cannot use our work to do it. You're also making a false dichotomy between "proprietary" and "free". If you don't understand that you can have proprietary free software then you're mistaken.
Sooo, what you are saying is that restrictive software is better than freedom.
Antonio Couto All laws are restrictive. Does that make all laws bad?
I love to learn stuff. Excellent video... I learned many things! Thanks!
I find myself conflicted here.
On the one hand, I am passionate about FOSS and user rights. Proprietary software itself is not immoral, but the means required to defend it are--in other words, it's just a stupid idea. How can you expect to make money when your competitors are offering their own software, that does the same thing as yours, and does it better, for free? By using legalese to eliminate the competition, of course! But...that's immoral. You can't take my money in exchange for a piece of software and then demand to continue having control over it. You can decide how often I drive this car and where, or you can have my money--but not both.
On the other hand, there is Voltaire's Law: you don't have to agree with someone's ideas, but if you claim to believe in freedom, then you must stand for their right to express and exercise those ideas. Calling something both "permissive" and "immoral" doesn't sound very free. FOSS is supposed to give us freedom, not take it away.
the thing is proprietary software isn't technically sold; it's rented. you rent the usage of the software.
with gpl software you actually buy it you can do what you want with it, except change the license
with bsd you get a the final freedom om keeping the source code to yourself.
and in practice this has resulted in proprietary software making millions and gpl software being improved by 'millions' while bsd chugs-a-long
ms office beats libreoffice because there a team behinf ms office that's paid full time
linux beats bsd in popularity because all the source code is open, gaining attention of many developers who want to learn from the code written by others
@@fuseteam not saying license doesn't have an influence but for your examples, licensing is not the main driver. Linux was popular and accepted from the start. It was a better software that happened to have GPL. Same goes for the first statement. There is some really good open source software that happens to be licensed under gpl ( for a while gpl was the default license) and maintianed by millions. But the ppl maintaining it are not doing it because it has gpl license.
Same for linux, it's not the open source trove because it has GPL...
i'm sort of confused, that you think taking bsd'ed code and use it in a proprietary project makes it an immoral action? i'm publishing under the bsd license and my intention is to not limit people in the way of how they use the software. so, i am willingly saying: it's fine to use it in a closed source project and it's not immoral to accept the offer.
i wouldn't go as far as calling it 'immoral' but i think that he is referring to the idea that you take code you didn't write out of a working project and using and improving it to your own benefit, while the original doesn't benefit from your improvements because you guard it as a trade secret
@@fuseteam well, when I am publishing under MIT, BSD, ISC or Apache2.0 it is exactly my intention to allow for that to happen. I want my code to be used everywhere, closed or open. Even if he is referring to the concept of no contributions flowing back, well, gpl just means that people have to post it somewhere publicly. So, changes flowing upstream are far from guaranteed. Try merging changes that are based in a branch that got it's git history removed and is documented in some other cryptic language or not at all and accessable publicly as a folder via ftp or as a zip without indication of the last time of change. There are many filedumps out there. Drawing up an imaginary relation between license and willingness to contribute back changes is just madness. This really looks like somebody without a clue making strong stances based on some fantasy world.
@@marcosiedentopf8203 i know they are far from guarenteed it takes quite a but to work with different version using git, this also why its also takes a lot of effort to go 'open source', something many don't appreciate.
that's also why don't go as far as to say it 'immoral' its simply not as well simple as that. i do believe given it is publicly available it does increase the likelihood the improvements can flow back, either by downstream pushing or upstream pulling changes back in. i honestly believe BSD would've been much bigger if apple contributed back
tho full disclosure i'm not familiar enough with all the different licenses an their subtleties to discuss them in depth
@@fuseteam Apple did contribute massively to FreeBSD. So did Sony. Typically with BSD based licensing, companies still want to stay close to the source because there are many benefits in that. Companies that are just taking the code still have to maintain it and that requires the company to be pretty large and smaller companies often end up in the mailing lists asking for help migrating their codebase. This gets devs paid xD!
@@marcosiedentopf8203 ohw interesting that sounds similar to (if not exactly like) how it ends up working on the Linux (kernel) in practice. guess i was completely wrong on it making that much of difference. this is second time BSD surprised me first time was with BSD's nvidea support
GPL: the license you use if you have a negative view of other humans
BSD/MIT: the license you use if you have a positive view of other humans
Funny thing is that companies like Apple and Sony Playstation don't even donate a penny to the FreeBSD foundation. It's the philosophy of their license unfortunatelly
Thank you for creating this video to help understand the licensing aspects.
I have come across a platform that was built largely off of the functionality of NiFi which is under Apache License being an Apache project. I've even seen where this company goes out and describes features of their product which are exactly the NiFi features as if it's what they built. This struck me as unethical software development not really given credit to apache. I wasn't really not sure what to do but licensing seemed like the right starting point.
I now agree the permissive licenses are immoral. This company in my opinion cheating people. Both the open source community and the buyers of the platform. In reality largely what they are building should be done in the open source community and not using it with a thing veil covering it to scam people out of money.
is it really free if its more restrictive
It restricts people from taking freedoms away from others. So yes.
Personally I license projects that I don't care about (small programs, like my own dwm-status utility) under the MIT-license.
If I care about a project it will be licensed under the GPL.
I must say I find it a little odd that, for example, a license like the MIT license is not considered a copy left licence as it requires you to include the original copy right clause in derived works and does not specify if it applies only to the original code or also the modified parts of the work. Seems to me it could possibly be a copy left licence, but who knows as it is not clearly defined in the text.
I am capitalist ( more like social democracy "wing", but It does not matter here luls) so for me something being not restrictive is not so unethical. Everyone should be able to distribute your software in the manner that one wants. I'ts ok. I like MIT license as I like GNU.
Can someone help me I got a friend thats a burnout and keeps telling me to read my Apache 2.0 agreement i told him like 9 times I don’t have it and it’s taking like a week to break his gibberish down and to put the puzzle together. Now he’s telling me there giving him 50% of some thing he claimed he made a patent for. I’m not saying he can’t do it, but he’s a kind of a magoo and hard to believe he could create something like that. I’m just looking for a little insight or if he’s just cracked out
Mic looks profesional, but does not sound profesional. LOL
Did you write in your description licences X betray licences Y movement, well that's because they have their own X licenced movements and don't care about Stallman but you like him would like that everyone submit to idea X
Surely with gpl if your source code has to be available to everyone then they can also just redistribute it.
I cannot agree with any of the licences - but perhaps the BSD is more sound.
The GPL "demands" you licence derivitives under GPL. I would call that restrictive on freedom. It is forcing conditions on code which is just an idea. Ideas unlike physical resources cannot be owned, and therefore people cannot put conditions on an idea.
DT writes it is restrictive of freedom to allow freedom.
What? This is a bit like saying you have to curb free will or curb free speech to ensure the protection of free will and free speech!
From my (admittedly wrong perhaps) understanding of the BSD licence, it does not condone the use of code in proprietary software but rather stays out of the argument. eg. I could sell you a kitchen knife but it is not on me whether you use that knife creatively to cook - or if you violate anothers right to life by stabbing them to death.
The BSD is neutral. There are already moral laws for aggression.
All this said, I need to look into Creative Commons more. This may be the best option.
In a world where proprietary software is the default, all these licences are useful though. Even patenting an idea so another does not patent it, in order to keep if free, has some merit. The point is to not initiate force against others which is the threat of proprietary licences.
Thank you for this introduction to FOSS licensing. Appreciate it.
Open licensing is being challenged by the toy company Hasbro… they are going to try to contest the idea of open licensing
I am sure the Church of Stallman agrees with you ;)
"I think permissive licenses are immoral"
"I think Richard Stallman was right"
R. Stallman has an essay outlining why he think permissive licenses are *not* immoral, too lazy to link it now tho.
As long as a permissive license does not violate the 4 principles of free software, I guess RS will not think it's immoral, otherwise, I'd expected him to think so
I'm interested to know How does BSD license work in SAAS context (Public or private cloud) when we develop proprietary software product from open source BSD license
BSD grants permission to use it any way you want, nobody even has to know how its used. Sony's PlayStation 4 used FreeBSD (BSD) license as the base for its OS. The only license I know which restricts SaaS is the AGPL license, which specifically declares even use over a network is considered distribution (which the GPL does not).
GPL2 is the reason the 'Linux is Cancer' remark was made. Also, permisive licenses aren't antithetical to the open source 'movement', they are antithetical to Stallman's 'free' software movement that adopted the term 'open source' earlier this century. 'Open source' is a term invented by companies that needed security, 'free' is Stallman all the way. If anything the adoption of 'open source' by groups that align with Stallman's philosophy represent a perversion of both their philosophy and of the original way corporations used 'open source'.
EDIT. Also, before I forget, Linux owns around 2% of the desktop market, BSD owns around 15% in the form of MACs. I'd say it's working great.
@@Waking_Abyssal Android doesn't have a share of the desktop market... as for Chrome OS, technically a linux distro.
@@Waking_Abyssal Notice how i said nothing about chrome os but commented on your inclusion of Android? Want to know why? Because I already knew that.
Also, Macs aren't just based on FreeBSD, they're certified UNIX. Which is technically more then either BSD or Linux.
@@Waking_Abyssal I never claimed they used the freebsd kernel - you are literally strawmanign me with that. I claimed they were technically BSD. Which isn't wrong based on bsd's permisive licence. This is the same bullshit argument I've heard about why Android isn't "real" linux because google changed the Kernel. Well, excuse me, but isn't that the whole point of Open Source? That everybody can do whatever the heck they want with the source code?
If both FreeBSD and NetBSD can claim to be BSD then there's literally no reason why the same claim can't be made about Darwin, iOS, MacOS from Apple. Just because they're made by a big corporation doesn't mean they stop being BSD. The same with Android and Linux. As long as the Linux kernel is open source, and as long as literally every single distro out there uses a modified version of the kernel - because frankly, they all do, even if it's just one or two kernel modules not in the official release - you can't claim android isn't Linux because you personally disagree with the changes Google made. Same with apple and their changes to the FreeBSD kernel code.
Here, read this: www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
Especially the "[...] *with* or without *modification* [...]" part.
What about TAPR Open Hardware License?
"You can make money" is almost like I can stand in the middle of a park and charge people walking by to move out of their way. Why would anyone pay if they can just walk around my me.
Permissive licenses: IMMORAL 🤬🤬😡😤👹👎👎
Deepin having EULA and data collection: I'd install this in my friends and family computers 😍😁🥳👍👍👌
The problem from a business perspective on GPL licenses is that you can't make much on selling it. Sure, you can sell support, however selling the software itself is different. You absolutely can sell it, but how many people are going to buy it until some just get the source and distribute to others for free. There goes your profits.
I love that Linux is free as in cost. I like free things, however I am also a realist and understand that people want to be successful entrepreneurs around selling a product that a lot of work/investment was put into.
That's why GPL projects often offer secondary commercial license giving corporations the right to use it in closed source. So it really doesn't prevent the "problem" with permissive licenses claimed in this video, it just offers an alternate route.
hi DT,
I want to use this video of yours - as a part of one of my videos. Can I? Please let me know...
I'll not be editing your video in any way. Probably I'll cut the last few seconds of the video. That's it. And ya, I'll be sharing my video with you - once it's ready.
What do you say? Please do let me know... :)
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.
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.
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.
this is the reason actually more hardware runs with freebsd based systems rather than with linux kernels (mac os, playstation, ontap (netapp) to just name a few)
GPL being the farther of free software licensing became the least popular among its offspring, correct?
I always use either GPL or CC-BY-SA
romiodens @ gmail com.
MIT license is the best in my opinion since it allows companies to integrate their proprietary software into open source software easily i am pretty sure a lot of companies want to release some addons for Blender but because of its license they don't after all its their software and they shouldn't be forced to open source their code
MIT > GPL. FSF are insane
Are you compiling web browser in Linux ?
The philosophical difference is older than software. Is a land where kidnapping is allowed more or less free?
Permissive licenses say it is more free to allow kidnapping
Copyleft licenses say it is less free to allow kidnapping
The only problem with GPL is the copyright dread that copyright imposes. And that's where this entire "viral license" comes from. I had times where asking someone why GPL, they didn't say it's because they want the good stuff copyleft offers, but they said "I did it because one of my dependency libraries was GPL". So, practically, an entire consequential forking is GPL'd. If suddenly GPL did not apply to the "original code that simply runs ON TOP OF GPL", then you'd see tons of projects suddenly becoming nonGPL. That's the problem. GPL is a choice, but what if it's not my choice? Why does my contribution have to be GPL and not something that could help someone else? And I agree with this entire "We should know what's in our software so it's not spying on us", but why not instead extend and expand fair use and rights to repair and consumer protection rights so that everyone can reverse engineer and audit whatever they have without the need of ANY LICENSE OR ANY PATENTS OR ANY DMCA LEGALISM? That is where GPL just flops by adding an extra layer of worry on top of all of this. Surely, GPL has saved the code in the 90s from being stolen by big tech corporations, but that's the same as a firefighter saving a building and granting himself the right to burn everything down again. The only stupidity of copyright, copyleft and even copycenter is the existential dread of having to ask and negotiate with someone just to use something. Software should be free as childhood, free as a piece of paper, free as a language, free as in "No sociopolitical doomship (doom=bull; p=t)!". There.
In an ideal world GPL should not be a choice. You should not be able to choose to violate your software user's freedoms. People that support the GPL view the four freedoms as essential positive freedoms which should be garenteed to all software users. This is in the same way the constitution gives you the positive freedom to not let your freedom of speech be violated by police or courts.
So the real question is "why doesn't GPL let me have my freedom?" its "why do you think its okay to use my work to deprive people of their fundamental freedoms?"
@@CCRUEnthusist Because this "fundamental freedom" requires me to deobfuscate and explain and document my code how everyone can read instead of programming however the hell I want, and also, in an ideal world, GPL would not be needed because instead of disclosing the source code, you could just reverse engineer my code, and the software user's freedom would be protected by the freedom to reverse engineer all code no matter what. It's like with the ROM hacking scene and the asset ripping meme culture. Look up Source Filmmaker. Look up fan fiction. Look up deviantART. Nobody cares about copyright. Heck, people say "X belongs to Y, drawn by Z, colored by Q, do not steal" thinking that copyright is all about credit; they don't even know that software must have a license to even be used. EULA is just some boring text. And whether it's my beloved MIT license or this GPL license which started the open-source movement, they're still ironically EULAs. I don't have to sign an EULA when I use pen and paper, but why do I need to do so for software? People hate politics; look at Minneapolis; look at the news; nobody wants any! Sure, GPL promises freedom, but it also has conditions. It's a hotpatch over a broken law of copyright. An effective one, but still enough political to be hated alongside everything. To make you feel better, some people tell me they don't care about licenses when I ask them what license their code is. Nobody cares!
Ok so does that mean i can build a program around an MIT licensed library and license my program under GPL? Also i think i need to pay more attention to licenses from now on, until now i have been "I see Opensource i like!". ..
yes you can but you cant do the opposite
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.
So it's the developer's fault, who decided to create software and release it for free, and not the company's fault, that decided not to open source their code in order to (most likely) make more money. Nice.
Why would you defend the big corporation, whose sole purpose is to make money, and blame the developer, who is giving his time and knowledge for free? If the big corp really cared about people with special needs, they would open source their program. But they won't, because it would mean that they wouldn't be able to win as much money by selling their product, they wouldn't be able to force users to pay for updates or bug fixes, they wouldn't be able to harvest user data.
What do you have running on the left screen?
The monitor off camera? Typically, that monitor is dedicated to OBS (used to record my videos), a file manager (to make sure when I hit record in OBS, that it is actually recording), and a terminal. The middle monitor is the one I typically record the screen when I do my tutorial type videos. The far right monitor usually has a web browser on it.
@@DistroTube I'm just curious about the animation :)
Ah, that's just a terminal program called cmatrix. You see it running in most of my videos. ;)
Saying all derivatives must be GPL means that you can't use a library that is GPL at the same time as another library that uses some LPG copyleft license.
My understanding is you cannot even use GPL with GPL unless they happen to be the exact same version of GPL. Copy Left is just proprietary software with an honors system and lawyers.
while free software can be sold......not many FOSS developers have an income build on FOSS software sadly.
makes me wonder; what do we need to enable FOSS devs to make a living from FOSS software
A better distro of our political economy
@@CCRUEnthusist eh?
@@fuseteam thats right
@@CCRUEnthusist what's right? i can't make sense out of your original reply
@@fuseteam its a joke. Read Das Kapital for context.
A concise and extremely clear coverage of the various licenses. I learned. Thank you sir.
If it's a small utility or game or whatever, I'll keep using the MIT. If it's a bigger program, then I would definitively consider the GPL, or even a proprietary licence at that point.
fantastic, thanks a lot
I learned a lot about it. when its although it's been used maliciously
Correction I'm sure while used properly it has its place. instead of an devious spy work
Totally agree. Thanks.
You can trade with Mr romio strategies,his the best ever known on bit coin forex trade crypto,coinbase and others and try to hurry up because time is money,money is life,life is beautiful❤🤣😂.
romiodens @ gmail com.
Finally... a straight-to-the-point explanation. Thanks!
If not for case law issues I would write my own license
You can trade with Mr romio strategies,his the best ever known on bit coin forex trade crypto,coinbase and others and try to hurry up because time is money,money is life,life is beautiful❤🤣😂.
romiodens @ gmail com.
One really needs to understand the difference between what is Liberty and what is freedom before they broach this topic!
wisdom from DT
Free as in Freedom
Who remembers Open Office?
romiodens @ gmail com.
Permissive licenses are freedom, keep your stallman hands away from them and don’t judge the morality of people because of that it’s a ducking freedom and people license whatever they want! 😡
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.
LMAO! Only idiots are complaining! There are TONS of great software on Linux! And they keep getting better and more!
Can you talk about versions of GPL, please?
Google is your friend.
Thank you, Derek. "Permissive" allows preventing freedom, free (copy-left) licenses prevent taking away permission to use freely.
That's not correct, copy-left licenses could be viewed as taking away freedom as they take away the freedom. That's the other side of the coin. Forced freedom isn't freedom at all.
@@PenguinRevolution , freedom to deny freedom to others is "a" freedom but not a freedom that frees. I don't mind paying for software, support for software, or donating. I buy System76 hardware and use Pop!_OS. I truly believe all aspects of computing would improve by theco-operation and advancement allowed by Libre licensing.
@@AnzanHoshinRoshi I guess you missed my point, it's not paying for software that I find objectionable, also I don't find the GPL objectionable either. However this attitude of my selecting one way of licensing and calling everything else immoral, or one philosophy and calling everything else immoral is acting like a dictator. Also if you are denying other freedom isn't freedom that is also acting like a dictator as well. However a creator has the right to control their work which is why I don't consider any license immoral including proprietary licenses. They have the freedom to keep their work closed source, just like you have the freedom not to use software that is proprietary. That is true freedom.
@@AnzanHoshinRoshi One needs to distinguish between two concepts: Liberty and Freedom.
Liberty is the right to not be aggressed against.
Freedom exists within the realm of liberty. You may have the liberty to read a certain book, that is, it is not banned.
You then have the freedom to read that book. This does not mean you demand to read it! It simply means nobody is actively stopping you -but you still have to purchase the book (or receive it as a gift).
If you say you have a right to read it, that means somebody has to supply it to you without there consent - which is a violation of their liberty.
The GPL demands that you share! Nobody should be forced to share. The only thing we owe other is non-aggression. If somebody else discovers your idea, good for them. You do not have the right to decry their use of the idea.
@@barkingbandicoot my thoughts couldn't have been better summarized than this, thank you!
What about a custom app that was written for a particular organization? You don't want the source code of such an app to be made generally available since it will contain private information that is specific to the organization.
Bro, this is an incredible video, thank you.
Most informative explanation
Sometimes I play a video a little just so it will stop showing up in my recommendations, for example that lady who was attacked by a monkey, This video is another one.
Unfortunately, there is almost no way to enforce the GPL. I remember Stallman talking about some DVD player used code licensed under GPL in their proprietary "digital handcuff" software and there was no way to sue them. Unfortunately, I can't remember the exact details of that specific case. If someone knows the details, and happens to read this comment, please reply and let me know.
Tivoization?
No serious software uses GPL
The Linux kernel would like to have a word with you.
If free software isn't about price, why is everyone who makes free software poor? It's always some small hobby project that make crap software and defend poor functionality with their moral high ground about how free it is.
Lifeless web user crap software? Buddy most fucking servers out there run some form of Linux. Android phones use the Linux kernel. MacOS is based on a BSD. Firefox, The Tor Browser Bundle, VLC, Stellarium, GnuPG and Thunderbird are all FOSS.
Proprietary software is often shitier. Just look at Windows
@@bigfly1391 Well GIMP and inkscape aren't better than Adobe or Affinity's products. Cope harder freetard.
@@bigfly1391 Yeah, Mac uses BSD, it USES BSD but it's not BSD, it's MacOS that uses BSD. Most of those apps you mentioned aren't even used for real work. They are good but they are completly pedestrian. It's just simple shit that's not that difficult to make. You can't make good software that is funded by donations.
@@bigfly1391 And people only use Linux becauz it's free. Not becauz it's better than the other ones.
i doubt permissive licenses are immoral and I would submit when there are times when they are good and times when they are bad.
That said, I noticed in your description box that you listed the video editor you use and I've never heard of it so I think I'm going to give it a try.
The lawful realm is rooted in Torah, while the legal realm is rooted in Talmud, the latter incorporating the commercial codification of the Babylonian master/slave relation through the Law Merchant, and Roman Civil Code. Most Constitutions are styled in Roman Civil Code, also including the corporate 1871 CONSTITUTION. Land of the free in a pig's eye.
License is rooted in the Church of Rome custom of paying for permission to sin. All actions and transactions that attach commercial value whether by omission or commission, intent or accident feed the vampiric ruling class that regards us as expendable useless eaters. The only way to win is to not play.
you ok? need some water?
@@shady4tv Is water under GPL ??? :P
Peace o/