What's bad about GPLv3?

[tperry2x]

I encountered some old post here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/com ... plication/
This comment sticks out:

whyis.png (26.38 KiB) Viewed 1711 times

My question is, what's so bad about GPLv3?

What I've been asking for, but nobody could give me a straight answer. The important bits for GPLv3 for anyone who wants a human-readable one. (This is all going in the legal mumbo jumbo in the licenses section of the about stack)

Key Concepts of GPLv3:

• Copyleft:

GPLv3 is a strong copyleft license, meaning that any software distributed under GPLv3 must be released with its source code and any derivative works must also be licensed under the GPLv3. This ensures that the software and its derivatives remain free and open for users.

• Freedom to Run, Modify, and Share:

Users have the freedom to run the program for any purpose.
Users can study how the program works and change it to make it perform computing as desired.
Users can redistribute copies of the original program or their modifications, ensuring the freedom to share improvements.

• Compatibility with Other Licenses:

GPLv3 was designed to be more compatible with other free software licenses, such as the Apache License version 2.0.

• Tivoization Protection**:

One major addition in GPLv3 is the protection against "Tivoization." This term refers to the practice of creating GPL software but locked down so users can't modify it. GPLv3 requires that if the software is distributed, users must be provided with the information to modify and install their own version.

• Patent Protection:

GPLv3 includes explicit patent protection clauses, which state that if the program is distributed, any patents the distributor might have that apply to the software must be licensed to the recipients.

• Internationalization:

The GPLv3 was drafted with international laws in mind, making it easier to use across jurisdictions.

Practical Example:

If you use GPLv3 software in your project, you must make the source code available to others and license your project under GPLv3 if it’s a derivative work. This makes it different from permissive licenses like MIT or BSD, which allow more flexibility in proprietary use.

For developers and companies, the key decision point is whether they want to ensure all modifications remain free (GPLv3) or allow proprietary use of their code (permissive licenses)

[OpenXTalkPaul]

Who knows what that person was thinking, maybe they're only interested in more liberally licensed open-source that allows them to use it with closed-source commercial software (as I'm pretty sure is the case with all of the dependencies that LC used). We'll probably never know why they left that completely vague comment.

LC has stated on various occasions that thier interpretation of 'derivative work' is the same as WordPress' interpretation, so that means EVERY stack created with LC Community Edition (and OXT by extension), that is code which requires 'the Engine' to be functional, is subject to its GPLv3 license (and therefore we CAN incorporate those works into OXT)

Or maybe they just don't like the drama in some open-source communities?

Coincidentally, I was just reading about the legal hub-bub going on with WorkPress:
https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/3/2426 ... -mullenweg

[tperry2x]

Or maybe they just don't like the drama in some open-source communities?

Tell me about it
I'm off to go cut the grass now, because I'm done here for today.

[richmond62]

I suspect that a lot of people's objections to GPLv3 is that it is a licence rather than just permission to indulge in unfettered freedom.

Unfettered freedom (as children slowly learn) is not socially useful (and if you have any doubts about that start thinking about how a society based on Anarchy would actually work: it wouldn't, because, very quickly, institutions with rules would emerge out of the chaos): and what we choose to call 'Freedom' in NOT unfettered freedom, but is freedom within a set of boundaries: a bit like playing chess: you cannot suddenly decide that the Bishop can hop over other pieces.

Freedom within a set of boundaries normally involves some sense and set of responsibilities (which unfettered freedom does not).

Of course I could release a piece of software, writing, cookery, what-have-ye, with NO licence at all: so Thee, Me, and Uncle Tom Cobbley could do WHATEVER we like with it: but as OXT software is already bound by an open-source licence we cannot do that, and we have a choice:

1. Stick with the OXT licence.

2. Break the licence and see whether anyone actually bothers to make 'a thing' out of what we have done.

3. B*gger off and either use some licence-less programming environment (if one exists) or write something that gets a computer to do what we want it to do from the electronic components upwards.

Personally I like GPL licences because it means that someone cannot grab my code and start making big wads of cash by copyrighting it as theirs.

Personally I don't like GPL licences because I cannot . . .

And there's the rub, and one has to make one's choice.

[OpenXTalkPaul]

Of course I could release a piece of software, writing, cookery, what-have-ye, with NO licence at all: so Thee, Me, and Uncle Tom Cobbley could do WHATEVER we like with it: but as OXT software is already bound by an open-source licence we cannot do that, and we have a choice:

I agree with most everything you've said, although there's two things I'd point out.
1) "with NO licence at all" , Thee, Me, and Uncle Tom Cobbley would not be able to do whatever they want with the software. I'm no lawyer, but I believe there would be some inherent copyright, IP rights there.
What you're talking about is something in the public domain, which of course everything becomes one day, usually long after the author is dead, maybe a century from now (even if it's a Disney product). Of course an author could explicitly place their work into the public domain if they wish.

2) There's nothing preventing Thee, Me, and Uncle Tom Cobbley from selling standalone apps built with the GPLv3 licensed engine, so long as one keeps within the original license and releases the xTalk source so that others may learn xTalk from it, which is easy to share since the source scripts are likely all nicely encapsulated in our source stack (unless the stack uses script-only behaviors, libraries, etc.).

[richmond62]

inherent copyright

And where does it exactly inhere?

I have a book published some 25 years ago: the author is dead, the publishers are uncontactable, the author has no heirs.

I have photocopied every page of this boo and print pages out on a regular basis for children to glue in notebooks and work with . . .

While the book contains a © sign, the © owner is dead (the whole situation is extremely sad as I had an ongoing email conversation with him for
about 10 years where he wrote some fairly "neg" things about the publishers: anyway the chap died at about 45.

There is NOTHING inherent in that book except paper, glue, ink, and how I choose to interpret the squiggles on the pages.

"Inherent copyright" is a bit like fairies at the bottom of the garden, a moral or legal fiction (a bit like the concept of "rights") used to constrain people's creativity: Shakespeare (who ripped off any number of other people's plays and refashioned them into something far better) would have laughed his hose off (err: no socks in those days) at that . . . So, without a GPL or somesuch we leave ourselves open to the vampires.

[OpenXTalkPaul]

inherent copyright

And where does it exactly inhere?

I have a book published some 25 years ago: the author is dead, the publishers are uncontactable, the author has no heirs.

I have photocopied every page of this boo and print pages out on a regular basis for children to glue in notebooks and work with . . .

Again, I'm no lawyer but If the author is dead, had no heirs, and the publisher is defunct and didn't transfer publishing rights to some other entity, then I think you'd be safe to share your friends work with the world as public domain. Perhaps you should upload it to sites like The Gutenberg Project (https://www.gutenberg.org ) and Archive.org so the world may benefit from their work?