I don’t think they should limit themselves to just GPL. There are some other good (or even better) licenses out there, such as AGPL (I use this one on all my projects), MIT and so on.
I haven’t read up on AGPL. How does it differ from GPLv3? :)
MIT f.e. would allow corporations to take the code and profit from it. GPLv3 would ensure that the funding from the EU would go to projects that remains open source and free.
AGPL is like GPL, but it also makes sure the source code of programs used via a network is available to the user.
Example: company provides a cloud service. The user uses that service via the internet. If the license of the service is GPL, the company doesn’t have to give the user the source code, but with the AGPL they do.
Maybe the EU could fund only projects under strong copyleft licenses?
I like the idea of public funds supporting code that stays public, which strong copyleft license is used doesn’t matter much to me to be honest.
The big thing would be if the EU helped litigate license breakers and not only fund the projects.
Sorry I replied to the wrong comment in the thread.
Let me try to explain.
GPL was designed to give users access to the source code for hardware they control.
This worked pretty well until TiVo came up with locks that would only allow you to run kernels they signed. This was to prevent people from putting in cheap disks to their hardware.
So GNU came up with GPLv3, which closes the TiVo hole. It also tried to address the evils of software patents to an extent.
That works okay, but then people invented SaaS (software as a service). In that case the user doesn’t own the hardware, so companies don’t have to publish the source under GPL. Which meets the letter of the license and gives a big middle finger to the intent.
So AGPLv3 was developed to close that hole. With AGPL users must have access to any open source run by a service to provide them with that service, restoring the ability of users to see what the code is doing, and possibly forking and making their own version if it doesn’t do what they want.
That’s not a good criteria, as it would exclude projects that are essential digital infrastructure like curl.
The criteria for public investment needs to be general positive impact.
With hundreds of companies using curl in their software I’d say it’s up to them to fund it.
Unless a strong copyleft license is used you’ll soon find some companies lobbying to have their open source MIT licensed code funded, which they then use in proprietary applications and earn money from while no one else uses the MIT code that was paid for. Essentially having the public investment fund a private company.
Now apply that to roads, electricity grid, rail roads, hospitals, police, firefighters and everything that states pay to keep the economy running.
That’s what taxes are for, and the proposal on the table from the EU side is to tax big tech companies to make sure the basic digital infrastructure is well funded.
I see your point but only partly agree. I can see why curl should be treated like infrastructure but I can also see that system quickly being misused as per above.
I strongly believe in having public money create public code, as in Lenas link (https://publiccode.eu/en/) elsewhere in this thread. As the funding isn’t infinite I believe that is where it will create the most public good - at least in the long run. Of course there will be outliers and exceptions, and maybe curl would be one of those, I just don’t want to see our money flowing straight into the pocket of another tech billionaire with good lobbyists in Brussel.
What if EU only funds open source that is GPLv3 AND promises to aid the projects in litigation if someone breaks the license?
I don’t think they should limit themselves to just GPL. There are some other good (or even better) licenses out there, such as AGPL (I use this one on all my projects), MIT and so on.
I haven’t read up on AGPL. How does it differ from GPLv3? :)
MIT f.e. would allow corporations to take the code and profit from it. GPLv3 would ensure that the funding from the EU would go to projects that remains open source and free.
AGPL is like GPL, but it also makes sure the source code of programs used via a network is available to the user.
Example: company provides a cloud service. The user uses that service via the internet. If the license of the service is GPL, the company doesn’t have to give the user the source code, but with the AGPL they do.
Maybe the EU could fund only projects under strong copyleft licenses?
I like the idea of public funds supporting code that stays public, which strong copyleft license is used doesn’t matter much to me to be honest.
The big thing would be if the EU helped litigate license breakers and not only fund the projects.
I fully agree, they should support FOSS projects on all fronts, not just the code itself (though the code is the most important part).
Btw, you might want to take a look at Public money, public code
AGPL is the superior license!
That truly explains the differences between the licenses, thank you shane.
Sorry I replied to the wrong comment in the thread.
Let me try to explain.
GPL was designed to give users access to the source code for hardware they control.
This worked pretty well until TiVo came up with locks that would only allow you to run kernels they signed. This was to prevent people from putting in cheap disks to their hardware.
So GNU came up with GPLv3, which closes the TiVo hole. It also tried to address the evils of software patents to an extent.
That works okay, but then people invented SaaS (software as a service). In that case the user doesn’t own the hardware, so companies don’t have to publish the source under GPL. Which meets the letter of the license and gives a big middle finger to the intent.
So AGPLv3 was developed to close that hole. With AGPL users must have access to any open source run by a service to provide them with that service, restoring the ability of users to see what the code is doing, and possibly forking and making their own version if it doesn’t do what they want.
Thanks for the explanation and sorry for my sarcastic response. :)
That’s not a good criteria, as it would exclude projects that are essential digital infrastructure like curl. The criteria for public investment needs to be general positive impact.
With hundreds of companies using curl in their software I’d say it’s up to them to fund it.
Unless a strong copyleft license is used you’ll soon find some companies lobbying to have their open source MIT licensed code funded, which they then use in proprietary applications and earn money from while no one else uses the MIT code that was paid for. Essentially having the public investment fund a private company.
Now apply that to roads, electricity grid, rail roads, hospitals, police, firefighters and everything that states pay to keep the economy running.
That’s what taxes are for, and the proposal on the table from the EU side is to tax big tech companies to make sure the basic digital infrastructure is well funded.
I see your point but only partly agree. I can see why curl should be treated like infrastructure but I can also see that system quickly being misused as per above.
I strongly believe in having public money create public code, as in Lenas link (https://publiccode.eu/en/) elsewhere in this thread. As the funding isn’t infinite I believe that is where it will create the most public good - at least in the long run. Of course there will be outliers and exceptions, and maybe curl would be one of those, I just don’t want to see our money flowing straight into the pocket of another tech billionaire with good lobbyists in Brussel.