ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

Asgaroth · 2008-07-23 11:08:30

shining wrote:

Asgaroth wrote:
So you would be fine with it, if someone took Arch, added features to it and made the whole thing closed source and sold it? I certainly wouldn't. To me this would look like taking advantage of other people's work without giving anything back.
How the hell can they close the whole thing?
The main goal of a distribution is to distribute packages. If these were GPL, you still have the obligation to provide the sources.
And don't they also need to provide the build scripts used to make the package? In this case, that should include the PKGBUILDs too, and maybe even makepkg. Then we are back to the problem of how to close shell scripts.
But anyway, please be more specific when saying something like that, you always make it look like Arch is owning every single software and has the power to change their license.

I'm not talking about the packages, but the components of Arch like pacman. For example, under the BSD license, someone could take the pacman code, add more features to it and release it under a closed source license.
Besides that, shellscripts could definitely made closed source, there are compilers to do that, for example shc or ccsh.
Besides that, this issue isn't really about whether it's technically possible to turn to closed source, but whether we would want it to happen, if it is possible, which is the case for many parts. I regard the possibility of this as harmful to a distribution and think that it's better for everyone if the code is ensured to stay open, not by technical difficulties, which might be overcome, but by licensing, in fact this is the actual purpose of these licenses in the first place. So saying that it's hard to do technically, is not really an argument for using the BSD license. An argument for it would be to say, that you're fine with somebody turning parts of arch into proprietary software and that you would want others to have this kind of freedom.

Tell me when you find a way to close source shell scripts smile

There is for example shc. I admit that it is just hiding away the source-code of the script in an ordinary application and with a bit of reverse engineering the code could be retrieved anyway, but this process can be made quite complicated by the respective obfuscation techniques and to me having to spend some time in a disassembler to get the source, is quite close to proprietary software. Besides, as explained above, technical possibility isn't really the point when choosing a license for your work. For one, these problems might be overcome in the future. So the real question is: Would you want that to happen to the software used by arch(pacman and the other utilities) assuming that it is possible.

iphitus · 2008-07-23 11:27:24

Asgaroth wrote:

I'm not talking about the packages, but the components of Arch like pacman. For example, under the BSD license, someone could take the pacman code, add more features to it and release it under a closed source license.

Do some research before posting...

Pacman is GPL.

As are most of the Arch components. They cannot be made closed source.

Besides that, shellscripts could definitely made closed source, there are compilers to do that, for example shc or ccsh.
Besides that, this issue isn't really about whether it's technically possible to turn to closed source, but whether we would want it to happen, if it is possible, which is the case for many parts. I regard the possibility of this as harmful to a distribution and think that it's better for everyone if the code is ensured to stay open, not by technical difficulties, which might be overcome, but by licensing, in fact this is the actual purpose of these licenses in the first place. So saying that it's hard to do technically, is not really an argument for using the BSD license. An argument for it would be to say, that you're fine with somebody turning parts of arch into proprietary software and that you would want others to have this kind of freedom.

Oh dear, philosophical argument.

I don't care what anyone does with netcfg code. I couldn't give a crap. Fork it, abuse it, close it - whatever. It works for me, it's a tool that works for me, and I don't care what anyone else does with it - I can still distribute and use my code that I wrote and that's all that matters.

As a matter of fact. I want people to be able to do that. The GPL is too restricting for what I like. I'll take it as a complement if anyone does anything with my code and I'll be very happy that someone found my code useful.

James

shining · 2008-07-23 11:32:06

Asgaroth wrote:

I'm not talking about the packages, but the components of Arch like pacman. For example, under the BSD license, someone could take the pacman code, add more features to it and release it under a closed source license.
Besides that, shellscripts could definitely made closed source, there are compilers to do that, for example shc or ccsh.
Besides that, this issue isn't really about whether it's technically possible to turn to closed source, but whether we would want it to happen, if it is possible, which is the case for many parts. I regard the possibility of this as harmful to a distribution and think that it's better for everyone if the code is ensured to stay open, not by technical difficulties, which might be overcome, but by licensing, in fact this is the actual purpose of these licenses in the first place. So saying that it's hard to do technically, is not really an argument for using the BSD license. An argument for it would be to say, that you're fine with somebody turning parts of arch into proprietary software and that you would want others to have this kind of freedom.

That last sentence is exactly what Aaron said.

Tell me when you find a way to close source shell scripts smile
There is for example shc. I admit that it is just hiding away the source-code of the script in an ordinary application and with a bit of reverse engineering the code could be retrieved anyway, but this process can be made quite complicated by the respective obfuscation techniques and to me having to spend some time in a disassembler to get the source, is quite close to proprietary software. Besides, as explained above, technical possibility isn't really the point when choosing a license for your work. For one, these problems might be overcome in the future. So the real question is: Would you want that to happen to the software used by arch(pacman and the other utilities) assuming that it is possible.

As above, Aaron already said he wouldn't mind (and iphitus seems to share that opinion), but also that he probably wouldn't bother changing the license to make that possible. So most archlinux projects will probably stay at GPL (v1 or v2?), which already ensures the code stays open.

Asgaroth · 2008-07-23 12:12:47

iphitus wrote:

Asgaroth wrote:
I'm not talking about the packages, but the components of Arch like pacman. For example, under the BSD license, someone could take the pacman code, add more features to it and release it under a closed source license.
Do some research before posting...
Pacman is GPL.
As are most of the Arch components. They cannot be made closed source.

I know that it is. As you can see from the context, I responded to Aaron's statement that in his opinion every could be BSD-licensed. So I was giving an example for an what-if scenario as an argument against licensing pacman under the BSD license.

Besides that, shellscripts could definitely made closed source, there are compilers to do that, for example shc or ccsh.
Besides that, this issue isn't really about whether it's technically possible to turn to closed source, but whether we would want it to happen, if it is possible, which is the case for many parts. I regard the possibility of this as harmful to a distribution and think that it's better for everyone if the code is ensured to stay open, not by technical difficulties, which might be overcome, but by licensing, in fact this is the actual purpose of these licenses in the first place. So saying that it's hard to do technically, is not really an argument for using the BSD license. An argument for it would be to say, that you're fine with somebody turning parts of arch into proprietary software and that you would want others to have this kind of freedom.
Oh dear, philosophical argument.
I don't care what anyone does with netcfg code. I couldn't give a crap. Fork it, abuse it, close it - whatever. It works for me, it's a tool that works for me, and I don't care what anyone else does with it - I can still distribute and use my code that I wrote and that's all that matters.
As a matter of fact. I want people to be able to do that. The GPL is too restricting for what I like. I'll take it as a complement if anyone does anything with my code and I'll be very happy that someone found my code useful.
James

Ok, that's completely your decision. I just said that the fact that is difficult to close source something is not an argument for a license that allows it, if you don't want that to happen. Since you're fine with all that, there's no problem, in the end it remains the decision of the individual developer.

As above, Aaron already said he wouldn't mind (and iphitus seems to share that opinion), but also that he probably wouldn't bother changing the license to make that possible. So most archlinux projects will probably stay at GPL (v1 or v2?), which already ensures the code stays open.

I realize that this is completely the decision of the developers, I just wanted to bring up an argument against putting arch components under the BSD license, you don't have to agree with it.
I'll continue to use Arch as long as the tools stay open source, which is the case with both BSD and the GPL. I'm sorry if my posts gave a wrong impression, I don't want to tell anybody what to do their work, I just wanted to bring up this point in the discussion.

Last edited by Asgaroth (2008-07-23 12:13:21)

Bison · 2008-07-23 13:34:27

Misfit138 wrote:

I like what I've read of the BSD license.
The BSD license seems more protective of the coder, while the GPL seems more focused on the code itself.

Indeed, the BSD license promotes freedom. GPL is rather restrictive, especially when you consider what type of software it is supposed to promote.

deadrabbit · 2008-07-23 14:53:31

As a rather new Arch user, and not a developer, my vote doesn't count for much, but I would like to see Arch software licensed under the GPLv3.

I'm far from an expert on free software licenses, but I do think the nature of the GPL helps promote Linux in some ways that the the BSD license does not, especially in the business world. For example, if a company uses BSD in an embedded device, no one ever knows it's there since they have no obligation to release code, or declare that they are using it. Part of the widespread adoption of Linux must be due to businesses seeing that others are able to use it to make great products (and a profit), and then choosing to adopt it themselves. Everyone in the IT world knows Linksys, Tivo, and others all use Linux. Not many people know who uses embedded BSD (Juniper Networks for example).

Dusty · 2008-07-23 15:15:28

This is a philosophical argument that really has nothing to do with Arch Linux. Through the ages people have been arguing between viral open source licenses (GPL, copyleft) and BSD style licenses. The two opinions will never be reconciled and the Arch devs have already stated their preference, there is nothing left to add here.

Dusty

shining · 2008-07-23 22:07:27

Dusty wrote:

This is a philosophical argument that really has nothing to do with Arch Linux. Through the ages people have been arguing between viral open source licenses (GPL, copyleft) and BSD style licenses. The two opinions will never be reconciled and the Arch devs have already stated their preference, there is nothing left to add here.

Though it is interesting to see that the two devs who expressed their opinions said they preferred BSD, yet most archlinux projects are under GPL

Arch Linux

#26 2008-07-23 11:08:30

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#27 2008-07-23 11:27:24

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#28 2008-07-23 11:32:06

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#29 2008-07-23 12:12:47

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#30 2008-07-23 13:34:27

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#31 2008-07-23 14:53:31

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#32 2008-07-23 15:15:28

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#33 2008-07-23 22:07:27

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

Board footer