I don’t think believe using GPL will achieve anything. I am a professional developer. If I’m looking for a library for a problem and find one that’s GPL, then I will simply not consider using it. What are the options here?
I could search for a different library with an MIT license. Let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that there are none.
I could ask my boss if I can release all our source code to the public. Yeah, sure. That’s going to happen.
I could ask my boss if I can have a bit of budget to haggle out a license with the library author. That’s a waste of time and money. Hammering out a license agreement across language boundaries and jurisdictions will involve a lot of lawyering and waiting that’s just not worth it. The additional fees would likely even outweigh the agreed payment to the author.
So what’s left? I don’t use a library and program the thing myself. It might take a while, but I’m way cheaper than lawyers. So in the end, GPL won’t do a thing to force a business to support FOSS, but will annoy developers.
That’s why, if I ever am in a position to meaningfully add to FOSS, it will be under the MIT license.
It sounds more like you think you are entitled to have access to a library to begin with. Why should one exist that you can exploit in a way that your business wants rather than one that respects freedom—this is where I completely agree with the software freedom folks.
If you work for a private business that is earning profit, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to expect to pay for a library or build it yourself. Why should something else just exist for your business to exploit?
First of all, I want to be clear that I wasn’t trying to be harsh. But it’s just your entire comment. As soon as you say, “I was looking for a library,” you’ve already indicated that you feel entitled to find a library somewhere rather than build it yourself (or pay someone to do it for you).
Do you not understand how that comes across as entitled? Meaning you feel entitled to access a software library that exists with a license you can exploit. You’ll reject a GPL licensed library because it is copylefted and you know your management would never go for GPLing the entire work.
What I’m saying is that if you’re writing your own software with a private business, why do you expect there to just be some library you can use internally to exploit and not contribute back to the community?
As soon as you say, “I was looking for a library,” you’ve already indicated that you feel entitled to find a library somewhere rather than build it yourself
That interpretation is completely on you. Whenever one is writing code, it’s good practice to check if it hasn’t been written before. No-one needs to re-invent the wheel for the umpteenth time.
Do you not understand how that comes across as entitled?
No. This approach is literally taught at Uni. Don’t repeat work. That’s not only in programming. A chemist’s saying is “6 months in the lab can save you 2 hours in the library.” Blindly doing everything from scratch is just incredibly poor use of resources.
You’ll reject a GPL licensed library because it is copylefted and you know your management would never go for GPLing the entire work.
Yes. I don’t see how that’s a contentious point. I think I made my position clear in my last comment.
why do you expect there to just be some library you can use internally
That assumption is based on experience. The whole JavaScript ecosystem thrives on the idea of building stuff based on others’ work. It’s you, btw, that chose to interpret ‘looking for’ as ‘expecting to exist’. I never said that, nor did I mean it.
I don’t think believe using GPL will achieve anything. I am a professional developer. If I’m looking for a library for a problem and find one that’s GPL, then I will simply not consider using it. What are the options here?
I could search for a different library with an MIT license. Let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that there are none.
I could ask my boss if I can release all our source code to the public. Yeah, sure. That’s going to happen.
I could ask my boss if I can have a bit of budget to haggle out a license with the library author. That’s a waste of time and money. Hammering out a license agreement across language boundaries and jurisdictions will involve a lot of lawyering and waiting that’s just not worth it. The additional fees would likely even outweigh the agreed payment to the author.
So what’s left? I don’t use a library and program the thing myself. It might take a while, but I’m way cheaper than lawyers. So in the end, GPL won’t do a thing to force a business to support FOSS, but will annoy developers.
That’s why, if I ever am in a position to meaningfully add to FOSS, it will be under the MIT license.
It sounds more like you think you are entitled to have access to a library to begin with. Why should one exist that you can exploit in a way that your business wants rather than one that respects freedom—this is where I completely agree with the software freedom folks.
If you work for a private business that is earning profit, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to expect to pay for a library or build it yourself. Why should something else just exist for your business to exploit?
Could you point me to the part of my comment that led you to that conclusion?
First of all, I want to be clear that I wasn’t trying to be harsh. But it’s just your entire comment. As soon as you say, “I was looking for a library,” you’ve already indicated that you feel entitled to find a library somewhere rather than build it yourself (or pay someone to do it for you).
Do you not understand how that comes across as entitled? Meaning you feel entitled to access a software library that exists with a license you can exploit. You’ll reject a GPL licensed library because it is copylefted and you know your management would never go for GPLing the entire work.
What I’m saying is that if you’re writing your own software with a private business, why do you expect there to just be some library you can use internally to exploit and not contribute back to the community?
That interpretation is completely on you. Whenever one is writing code, it’s good practice to check if it hasn’t been written before. No-one needs to re-invent the wheel for the umpteenth time.
No. This approach is literally taught at Uni. Don’t repeat work. That’s not only in programming. A chemist’s saying is “6 months in the lab can save you 2 hours in the library.” Blindly doing everything from scratch is just incredibly poor use of resources.
Yes. I don’t see how that’s a contentious point. I think I made my position clear in my last comment.
That assumption is based on experience. The whole JavaScript ecosystem thrives on the idea of building stuff based on others’ work. It’s you, btw, that chose to interpret ‘looking for’ as ‘expecting to exist’. I never said that, nor did I mean it.