Someday I need to write up a proper "why did I give up on the GPL". In the meantime, I have some incoherent notes-to-self.


- leaf node vs root node (lwn comment)
  - GPL was copyleft. No longer.
  - Used to unite. No longer does.

- GPL is DRM, do dah, do dah. "I am altering the bargain."
  - GPLv2 still works. Hijacked the "lifeboat clause" when not sinking.
    - scared of "the cloud" because they don't understand it. Cringely.
  - Unilaterally changed over the objections of large portions of community.
    - We complain when facebook changes its privacy settings, or when credit
      card company change terms, even though "you read/agreed to small print".
  - Become what you fight. Stallman and boromir fell into the same trap.
    We should not be rooting for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to
    become _stronger_.

- Red Hat and Ubuntu forced off by gaming the system
  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/06/shuttleworth_responds_uefi/

- I didn't change. The GPL did.

- History with busybox.
  - GPLv3 guys are tone deaf, self-righteous.

- mepis
  - trust them as far as I could throw them.
  - FSF was conservative reactionary organization, GNU project attempt to
    recreate status quo of the 1970's by cloning existing software.
    - emacs: already existed.
    - unix: already existed
    - gcc: started with existing compiler

- Started actual enforcement suits to get _code_. There was no code.
  - I couldn't stop them. Others complained about me rendering them irrelevant.

- Android: no GPL in userspace
  - No GNU is good GNU.
  - Linux is not, and never was, part of the GNU project. The FSF is not
    involved in Linux development, and often actively opposes it.

FAQ:
Why did license change?
  Busybox predates android, if they were going to use it they could have at
  any time, but there isn't even an aftermarket installer that doesn't require
  you to root your phone first

Why did the license change?

To target Android, and because the GPL is no longer interesting.

Busybox predates Android: if Android was going to start using BusyBox they'd have done it by now, but there isn't even an aftermarket installer that doesn't require you to root your phone first.

In general, GPL use is declining ever since GPLv3 came out. GPLv3's greatest effect was to undermine GPLv2 (and make the phrase "GNU/Linux" a license conflict, since GNU is GPLv3 only and Linux is GPLv2 only so the two can't share code).

Copyleft is a form of license that requires all derivative works to be under the same license. It puts a fence around code, keeping the code out of projects distributed under other licenses, and preventing code only available under other licenses from being combined with this codebase.

For many years the dominant form of copyleft was GPLv2, which was popularized by Linux. Linux userspace code used the same license as the kernel to create a giant pool of shared code under the same license. For most developers, "copyleft" and "GPL" were synonymous.

When Sun released OpenSolaris they wanted to prevent Linux from cherry-picking a few interesting features and discarding the husk, so Sun created a new copyleft license called CDDL, which was intentionally incompatible with the GPL as used by Linux. This was a significant contributing factor to the failure of OpenSolaris:

project gravity The failure of sun's CDDL GPLv3's greatest effect was to undermine GPLv2 (and make the phrase "GNU/Linux" a license conflict, since GNU is GPLv3 only and Linux is GPLv2 only so the two can't share code).

Attacking people sticking with GPLv2 (Savannah lwn.net thing) GCC a hairball because worried modular design let people extend it. - Single pool, network effects. - GPLv3 split the community, undermined gplv2. - GPLv2 "the license of linux". Linus Torvalds popularized it. - Announced in 2000 GPLv2 only. 6 years before GPLv3. - FSF did not get him onboard, instead attempted to strongarm into compliance. - GPLv3 split the community #15-08-2011 Sun CDDLv2 Open source licensing: http://lwn.net/Articles/473009/ Sometimes the donation of a large codebase becomes a bit of a white elephant, and the desire to become associated with the prestige associated with the code's history trumps common sense. - donbarry Reexamining the GPL - Copyleft uses copyright against itself. Do lawsuits do more good than harm? http://queue.acm.org/unprogramming.cfm nvidia reverse engineered OLS paper on reverse engineering video driver wired article about linksys effort - did not file suit - compare 2003 vs 2008 - maintain community, statement of goals - GPLv3 completely undermined this. Fonts under GPL bad idea: http://lwn.net/Articles/502371/ DPL: "gpl for patents" http://lwn.net/Articles/502574/ Patent troll du jour: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/ntp-to-get-patent-cash-from-pretty-much-entire-cell-phone-industry/ Which side are we on? Ownership of ideas, or do what you like with it? You're only free if I tell you how you're free? You have to be free my way?