Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by NayamAmarshe 1315 days ago
> The GPL doesn't force you to make software better for everyone.

It forces you to contribute. Read what GPLv3 states:

- Include a copy of the full license text

- State all significant changes made to the original software

- Make available the original source code when you distribute any binaries based on the licensed work

- Include a copy of the original copyright notice

Watch Linus' interview with the Intel CEO where he talks about what open source is. He clearly mentions that it's a system where personal reasons end up benefitting everyone involved. When someone contributes code for their own need, collectively everyone ends up benefitting from the individual changes. It's not an altruistic system, nobody is doing this to please corpos like MIT license usually is.
2 comments
nh2 1315 days ago
You ignored the

> and keep it all to themselves

bit. The GPL allows you to make modifications to software, and then not publish the code of those modifications, as long as you don't distribute the software. If you only use the software in-house, you can make unpublished modifications as much as you like. That's what "keep it all to themselves" most likely referred to.

link
charcircuit 1315 days ago
You can distribute the software and still not publish it. The source just has to be available to who you distribute the binaries to. It could be the case that your community is non technical and don't care about the source code. It could be the case that having the changes is "cool" and leaking them to be public wouldn't make it cool anymore and could get them kicked out or shamed.
link
charcircuit 1315 days ago
>Make available the original source code when you distribute any binaries based on the licensed work

You only have to make it available to people you distribute the binaries to. If people with the binaries don't want it or if they want to keep it to themselves they are free to do so.

The reasons why corpos contribute back to upstream projects have nothing to do with the license. Usually it is just to shift the maintenance costs to the upstream developers.

link