[tentonova]

I'm not sure how I understand how a commercial license is "strictly more restrictive" than the AGPL, which requires that you also release your code under the AGPL. Whether or not it's "strictly more restrictive" rather depends on whether you want to also release all the source to your own code as well.

I also don't understand how the AGPL's objectives are "benevolent" when the primary purpose of those objectives as applied by commercial interests is to ensure a revenue stream via commercial license.

You yourself said: "GPL-style licenses make it harder for competing companies to use your code. GPL is therefore an easier sell inside of a company."

How is that benevolent? (charitable, intending or showing kindness).

[tptacek]

Commercial license: not only do you not have the right to use my software without accepting my terms, but you will pay me, probably per-core. That's strictly worse than AGPL.

You and I may be arguing at cross-purposes. You seem to care a lot about the hardships licenses create for software users. I couldn't care less. I think it's an inherently benevolent thing for a software author to give away her code for free, and if she wants to do that under a strict copyleft... her code, her terms.

The objective of the AGPL is reasonable. "Don't use my code in closed-source applications". As a developer, that term has been annoying on many occasions (shudder readline), but it has never seemed unfair.

[tentonova]

I'm surprised at the appeals to emotion engendered in your word choices -- "fairness" and "benevolence".

I don't think either applies. The GPL is primarily useful as a means to maintain a very specific business model that relies on selling commercial licenses. There's nothing moralistic or benevolent or "fair" about it -- it's simply business.

The only moral argument I could possibly make is that it's disingenuous if not outright hypocritical to claim that the GPL is about "freedom" when its used as merely a business tool that leverages the closed-source work of others to fund ongoing development.

[tptacek]

I agree that the GPL is primarily useful as a vehicle for making money off software that is also released as open source. Since open source commercial software is strictly better than closed source commercial software, I don't have a hard time using words like "benevolent" to describe that practice.

Remember, people can still compete with GPL/AGPL software. They just have to do it with open source code.

Finally, your third graf is profoundly disingenuous. Most GPL software is noncommercial. Everything we use to post on HN is traceable in some way back to GCC, which isn't making money for anyone.

[tentonova]

I agree that the GPL is primarily useful as a vehicle for making money off software that is also released as open source. Since open source commercial software is strictly better than closed source commercial software, I don't have a hard time using words like "benevolent" to describe that practice

I'm not sure I understand your use of "strictly better" here. If my goal is to solve a specific problem, then isn't the software that solves that problem the best strictly better software?

As far as benevolence, why ascribe primarily altruistic motives to clear business decisions? MySQL's use of the GPL allowed for pervasive adoption, which increased demand for commercial licensing and support services.

Finally, your third graf is profoundly disingenuous. Most GPL software is noncommercial. Everything we use to post on HN is traceable in some way back to GCC, which isn't making money for anyone.

How do you think GCC development is paid for? Just take a look at the (closed source, proprietary, et al) companies providing the primary funding ongoing GCC development (although many are moving to or looking at LLVM, since its licensing provides a better model for this sort of shared OSS funding).

It always comes down to money and either commercial interests or government funding.

[tptacek]

I think you and I are wasting time. You care about making things easier for software users. Software users don't make more software; software authors do. I care about the interests of developers to the exclusion of almost everything else, and I'm also simply not religious about the tools they use to accomplish those aims.

The business benefits of the GPL are so compelling that I don't think they need my cheerleading. If I write 50,000 lines of C code, and you want to stick that code in your $10,000 software package and not pay me a dime, the GPL (for the most part) keeps you from doing that. Total win.

[tentonova]

I think you and I are wasting time. You care about making things easier for software users. Software users don't make more software; software authors do.

Actually, I think "users" should pay for software as that's all they're able to contribute, and I don't think that the GPL dual-licensing model users by some enterprise vendors can actually work for most consumer software.

If I produce developer-oriented software that's outside of our core business -- but perhaps enables our core business -- I am very likely to release it under the MIT/BSD license to help aid in wide adoption and external contribution from funding business interests.

If I produce software that is our core business, then I won't MIT/BSD license it. I might GPL it, but only if there's a clear value (ie, leveraging the 'open source' name, aiding in widespread adoption by hobbyists while targeting enterprise users, etc) in doing so.

The business benefits of the GPL are so compelling that I don't think they need my cheerleading.

The benefits are only compelling for --some-- business models. And this doesn't disprove the author's point.

As for other business models, especially around commoditized software, the BSD license often provides the most compelling business benefits as corporates are free to pool resources on code they are free to link against without having to release the entirety of their products under a copyleft license.