we used to get by on the most basic and plain English of agreements and a healthy dose of common sense, all of which is just as valid in court.
Yes, but who's "we"? Did that include the thousands of business that nowadays use and contribute to OSS and also have lawyers to worry about those things?
The world is not a better place because ordinary people with no legal training and better things to do with their time are subject to multi-page formal agreements, which most of them have never actually read, never mind understood.
But it was copyright that created that, by prohibiting any redistribution and derivation by default. FOSS licenses are a way to counter-act that and give you rights.
And while the GPL is not as short as we would like, the reality is that it created a standard; you just have to read it once to know the license of more than 50% of the FOSS projects out there. That seems a time saver, not killer.
Did that include the thousands of business that nowadays use and contribute to OSS and also have lawyers to worry about those things?
You know it didn't. But I don't really see how that's relevant to my point. If it takes several pages of legalese to define what "freedom" you are giving someone, you might want to consider whether you're using the right word for what you're doing.
But it was copyright that created that, by prohibiting any redistribution and derivation by default.
No, it wasn't. It was bad lawyers who can't write plain English, and picky people at the FSF who tried to fine-tune everything instead of stating a clear guiding principle.
There are plenty of other licences that are very much shorter.
And while the GPL is not as short as we would like, the reality is that it created a standard; you just have to read it once to know the license of more than 50% of the FOSS projects out there. That seems a time saver, not killer.
Sorry, but that's just wishful thinking.
Firstly, I suspect that a lot of people use the GPL not because they like or understand it but because it was the peer pressure "what you do" option for a while. Those kids used to just give their code away as freeware and no-one was any worse off for it.
Secondly, it's not really a standard when there are at least three styles of GPL licence that come up reasonably often in discussions (GPL, LGPL, AGPL) and then there's the whole v2/v3 mess as well. In fact, this kind of fragmentation is probably a large part of why we're having this whole discussion on HN today.
Finally, while I respect the goal of trying to have some standardised licensing, the only standard I've observed in practice is that, unless you're working in an organsation where everyone values GPL-style licensing and uses it as an integral part of your business model, the lawyers and managers are likely to blanket ban any use of GPL'd code because the risk of the viral contamination effect is too high to justify any benefit from using it.
On the other hand, it's easy and feels safe to reuse code that comes with a no-nonsense BSD/MIT style licence that says in plain English that you can use the code without understanding several pages of legalese with subtle implications. That saves time.
No, it wasn't. It was bad lawyers who can't write plain English, and picky people at the FSF who tried to fine-tune everything instead of stating a clear guiding principle.
There are plenty of other licences that are very much shorter.
Well, unlike permissive licenses, the GPL is an hack on the copyright system; they probably wanted to make sure it would hold up in court.
But the GPL isn't really that long; the 2.0 is only 340 lines of 80 characters. Yeah, it's long compared to MIT, but it's still a fraction of most legal documents.
Firstly, I suspect that a lot of people use the GPL not because they like or understand it but because it was the peer pressure "what you do" option for a while. Those kids used to just give their code away as freeware and no-one was any worse off for it.
"Freeware" doesn't include the right to modify and re-distribute. Yes, we were certainly worse off for it. If you mean Freeware as a different concept, well, then it's easy to see why licenses are useful - they clearly define that stuff, so you can sleep at night knowing your business or webapp or whatever won't get sued to the ground tomorrow.
Secondly, it's not really a standard when there are at least three styles of GPL licence that come up reasonably often in discussions (GPL, LGPL, AGPL) and then there's the whole v2/v3 mess as well.
The differences between the three versions are minimal - a clause or two more, nothing else.
The v2 vs v3 issue is problematic, I agree. On the other hand, protection against software patents is important. MIT, for example, provides none.
It seems irrelevant 'till you get hit by a patent troll, like startups are already getting hit.
Finally, while I respect the goal of trying to have some standardised licensing, the only standard I've observed in practice is that, unless you're working in an organsation where everyone values GPL-style licensing and uses it as an integral part of your business model, the lawyers and managers are likely to blanket ban any use of GPL'd code because the risk of the viral contamination effect is too high to justify any benefit from using it.
True. But unlicensed or implied licensing is dangerous too - you need some kind of legalese.
On the other hand, it's easy and feels safe to reuse code that comes with a no-nonsense BSD/MIT style licence that says in plain English that you can use the code without understanding several pages of legalese with subtle implications. That saves time.
Wait till you base your company on someone else's MIT licensed code and then get hit by a patent lawsuit from them or a troll with their patents. Safe? I don't think so.
But the GPL isn't really that long; the 2.0 is only 340 lines of 80 characters.
Is that all?!
Out of curiosity, what proportion of people who choose to licence their own code under the GPL do you think have actually read all of that and consulted a lawyer to make sure they understood the terms they were themselves proposing? I'm not even considering the equivalent question for the wider population of users and downstream developers affected by the licence terms yet.
"Freeware" doesn't include the right to modify and re-distribute. Yes, we were certainly worse off for it.
In what way? We didn't worry about offering others formal rights in those days. People shared source code if they thought they had something worth sharing, without making a big deal about it. Such code frequenty came with comments to the effect that you could use it however you liked but please give credit, or words to that general effect, which would have just as much validity in court as a modern MIT or BSD licence for example.
The differences between the three versions [GPL, LGPL, AGPL] are minimal - a clause or two more, nothing else.
Wow. That's a mighty bold claim, and one I don't think a lot of software developers would agree with. The changes in wording may only be a small part of a vast document, but the implications are profound.
It seems irrelevant 'till you get hit by a patent troll, like startups are already getting hit.
The correct solution to patent trolls is not to allow things like software patents in the first place. It's a controversial subject and there is far from consensus internationally or even within some national governments on whether software should be patentable at all.
In any case, I think you are imagining a legal shield that is not there. Patent trolls typically don't contribute to a FOSS project and then go after other people who use it. In fact, patent trolls typically don't contribute much of anything to any project, which is one of the reasons they are... not well thought of. If you're using someone else's code and you don't have some solid legal agreement that they indemnify you fully against all the related IP threats, you're not safe, and no FOSS licence provides such indemnification; many explicitly state precisely the opposite.
For that matter, you don't have any real protection in a troll-friendly legal system even if you never use anyone else's code at all and you write every line yourself. I don't think there's much argument in favour of GPL-esque legalese to be found here. My personal view is that some of the GPLv3 stuff is basically the FSF trying to conflate two unrelated IP issues and leverage the viral nature of the GPL to advance other parts of their agenda. Which is a pretty scummy thing to do, actually.
Out of curiosity, what proportion of people who choose to licence their own code under the GPL do you think have actually read all of that and consulted a lawyer to make sure they understood the terms they were themselves proposing?
Not many, but I'd guess they didn't read MIT nor BSD either.
By the way, the original BSD licenses forced you to acknowledge the upstream project in any advertising materials for yours. How many people read that? Not many, I would guess.
In what way? We didn't worry about offering others formal rights in those days. People shared source code if they thought they had something worth sharing, without making a big deal about it.
As I said, that's fine in a community of hobbyists, not if we want businesses contributing. But that's a different issue.
which would have just as much validity in court as a modern MIT or BSD licence for example.
Do you have any example of a lawsuit where such freeform license was valid?
Besides, even if it was, I doubt people had enough trust in that to release commercial stuff based on it.
Wow. That's a mighty bold claim, and one I don't think a lot of software developers would agree with. The changes in wording may only be a small part of a vast document, but the implications are profound.
I was talking about the license text, not the implications.
The correct solution to patent trolls is not to allow things like software patents in the first place. It's a controversial subject and there is far from consensus internationally or even within some national governments on whether software should be patentable at all.
I'm sure the FSF would've ended software patents if they could, but it's hardly fair to criticize them for not doing so. They did what they could: route around them.
I would think the patent grant protects in the case the upstream developer sells those patents to a troll after you're already using the code, but I'm certainly not sure.
My personal view is that some of the GPLv3 stuff is basically the FSF trying to conflate two unrelated IP issues and leverage the viral nature of the GPL to advance other parts of their agenda. Which is a pretty scummy thing to do, actually.
This talk about the GPL being "viral" is just FUD. If the GPL "infected" your project if because you made the voluntary decision of including GPL-licensed code in it.
And why is it scummy? They provide a tool (the GPL) to whoever wants to use it. Advancing the Free Software Movement is obviously one of the goals of the tool, like mostly anything the FSF does.
Yes, but who's "we"? Did that include the thousands of business that nowadays use and contribute to OSS and also have lawyers to worry about those things?
The world is not a better place because ordinary people with no legal training and better things to do with their time are subject to multi-page formal agreements, which most of them have never actually read, never mind understood.
But it was copyright that created that, by prohibiting any redistribution and derivation by default. FOSS licenses are a way to counter-act that and give you rights.
And while the GPL is not as short as we would like, the reality is that it created a standard; you just have to read it once to know the license of more than 50% of the FOSS projects out there. That seems a time saver, not killer.