• MJBrune@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t like how it forces everything it touches to be GPL. Even if the works it touches are unrelated to the original functionality. It restricts what I can do with the code I wrote without the help of the GPL’ed code. For example, if I write an entire game: gameplay, physics, renderer, networking, etc., all myself. Then I need to include a snippet of GPL’ed code for any reason, all that work now no longer belongs to me. I, the worker, no longer have access to the fruit of my labor. Instead all of it, disproportionally, is given away to the collective world. I lose the fruits of my labor.

    With others, I do not. You can give your code to the community, you can even adopt licenses to say if you improve the code you must also open source it and give it to the community but when you then say and you also have to give away any code it touches inconsequential to it’s functionality. That feels too restrictive for me. I honestly would like to see people adopt a middle ground. LGPL does this afaik and it feels like a better choice than GPL or BSD if you are trying to keep just your creation and it’s derivatives open.

    • pancake@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you use my snippet, I want your game. If you don’t agree, then you can’t use my snippet. The purpose of the GPL is simply to prevent people who don’t share from benefitting from people who do, which I think is pretty fair.

      • MJBrune@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, it’s a disagreement on what fair sharing is, and honestly. I don’t want your code if I can’t meet the intent of the license. That’s fine. It’s just the reason I don’t GPL my code. It feels like I am enacting restrictions on someone else that doesn’t feel fair.

    • lily33@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That seems a somewhat contrived example. Yes, it can theoretically happen - but in practice it would happen with a library, and most libraries are LGPL (or more permissive) anyway. By contrast, there have been plenty of stories lately of people who wrote MIT/BSD software, and then got upset when companies just took the code to add in their products, without offering much support in return.

      Also, there’s a certain irony in saying what essentially amounts to, “Please license your code more permissively, because I want to license mine more restrictively”.

      • MJBrune@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, remember, this is why I don’t GPL my own code, not why I don’t use GPL’ed code. I want to provide to others what I want to be provided to me. I make my games from Godot, MIT-licensed. Allows people to make commercially viable games. I also contribute what I can to Godot and attempt to backport engine improvements to Godot when I can. This exchange is fair to me and I believe fair to Godot.

        Games exist as products directly to the consumer. There are reasons why GPL’ed games haven’t been commercially viable and those who’ve GPLed their game (after they have made tons of money from it) still don’t include the art. They still want to keep the game as profitable as possible while GPLing what they can.

        Essentially the GPL is at odds with our capitalistic society, which is fine, our capitalistic society could be a lot better if we were more socialist or communist. The place it breaks down though is that we are still in a capitalistic society and people need to be able to sell their works for money.

    • charje@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You still own the code you release under GPL. the restriction you are describing is actually caused by the non-copyleft licences you claim to prefer. If you choose to use MIT, you are limiting which libraries you can use. If you had picked GPL to begin with, you can use any library.

      • MJBrune@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t exclusively own my own works anymore. Which is different than just owning your own work. Exclusivity allows you to sell something. Without that ability, you can’t convert a product into money as easily.