undefined | Better HN

0 pointsxyzzy_plugh5y ago0 comments

> For example it is equally important, if not more, that modifications in most cases have to be contributed back to the community, which means getting companies to take part in the action, instead of simply using work of others, profitting from it and never contributing anything back.

This is wrong. There is no requirement to contribute back to the community, just the requirement that changes (or rather, the source with your changes) be made available to your users. This means they could mail CDs of their code to their paying customers only, if they so choose. A far cry from "contributing back to the community", closer to something like "a pain in the ass."

0 comments

tsimionescu5y ago

That is a distinction without a difference, mostly - since those paying customers are free to then publish the source code they got from you for free for everyone.

The theoretical possibility of charging money for distributing GPL software has not materialized for any company. You can get RHEL for free if you want, for example, and build sell your own devices with it.

njarboe5y ago

You can't charge money for distributing GPL software because with high speed internet that is very cheap and easy to do. Competition will and has brought that cost to about zero. And that is a good thing. Everyone now has free access to a huge amount software with source code.

tsimionescu5y ago

So how can a software company make money, in an ideal world where all code is free?

1 more reply

dec0dedab0de5y ago

And really that's a beautiful thing. If I'm going to rely on your software. I want a way to keep supporting myself if you go out of business or you deem my suggestions unworthy.

mimixco5y ago

Surely. We can have both. Red Hat, for example, gives you the source after you pay for a license. This is how it was at IBM years ago in the mainframe world.

codeguro25y ago

This is precisely why I love the GPL.

mimixco5y ago

Exactly. I don't know where the phrase "contribute to the community" came from but it's not in the GPL license text.

All you have to do to comply is make your own source code available on request to users who accept your license, along with installation instructions to build the running product. That's not contributing anything to the other dev's community.

zelphirkalt5y ago

As far as I know, when you make modifications, you need to release the modified source code together with the product. That means, that you can not keep it a secret, that only you know, unless no one ever buys your product.

I am not so sure about what you say about releasing it to only paying customers. That might be true. In that case one of the original developers could buy 1 license or the community could pay for 1 license and this way get the source code. Then the developers of the modification would get some pay and the original developers would get the source code.

est315y ago

The GPL gives you multiple options to comply with it. Roughly summarizing, either you put the source code onto the same medium that contains the object code, which is what xyzzy_plugh is alluding to, or you can put it onto a web server and accompany the object form with a written offer that it's on that web server. See section "6 Conveying Non-Source Forms" of the GPL.

The GPL only requires you to make the source code accessible to those people who also get the binary from you, not everyone, but most entities just allow downloads for anybody. It's more expensive to implement checking than it's to just allow downloads for everyone. xyzzy_plugh is splitting hairs here.

xyzzy_plughOP5y ago

I'm really not splitting hairs.

"Contributing back to the community" sorta implies you're opening a PR, following coding guidelines, writing tests even perhaps. What happens in practice is corps just hack everything together and rush stuff out the door -- no communities want those contributions. It's rare that these sort of releases contain anything novel or useful. Take a look at the OSS releases for Amazon's products (Echo, FireTV) and be prepared to be underwhelmed.

1 more reply

codeguro25y ago

There is nothing preventing those users to publish that exact thing for the world to see. The GPL ensures that they can absolutely do that, so your point is moot.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

tsimionescu5y ago

That is a distinction without a difference, mostly - since those paying customers are free to then publish the source code they got from you for free for everyone.

njarboe5y ago

tsimionescu5y ago

So how can a software company make money, in an ideal world where all code is free?

1 more reply

dec0dedab0de5y ago

And really that's a beautiful thing. If I'm going to rely on your software. I want a way to keep supporting myself if you go out of business or you deem my suggestions unworthy.

mimixco5y ago

Surely. We can have both. Red Hat, for example, gives you the source after you pay for a license. This is how it was at IBM years ago in the mainframe world.

codeguro25y ago

This is precisely why I love the GPL.

mimixco5y ago

Exactly. I don't know where the phrase "contribute to the community" came from but it's not in the GPL license text.

zelphirkalt5y ago

est315y ago

xyzzy_plughOP5y ago

I'm really not splitting hairs.

1 more reply

codeguro25y ago

There is nothing preventing those users to publish that exact thing for the world to see. The GPL ensures that they can absolutely do that, so your point is moot.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse