Topic: Switch to GPL - page 2. (Read 17495 times)

MIT is compatible with the widest range of other open source licenses, so it will help the uptake of bitcoin. Satoshi made his decision a long time ago, and there are surely more important things to be worrying about.

The MIT license is compatible with the GPL, so you are free to create and develop a GPL fork if you feel strongly enough about it.

Satoshi is busy.  Doing what, I have no idea-- maybe he's working on a GPL-version of bitcoin, but I doubt it.

In any case, I wouldn't expect any opinion on GPL versus MIT from him.

My opinion:  I've got better things to do than worry about which open source license is most appropriate.  No software license has magical powers that will prevent 'bad guys' from trying to do bad things.

I'm joining the voice of those insisting that a GPL license would be better for the "official" bitcoin client.

Actions tell al lot more than words.
Distributing the source-code with a permissive license translate to a people's mind that it is an optional but valid alternatived to distribute and accept a closed-source bitcoin-client.

Then one day, someone decides to ship, under well-worked pseydonym, an android-client with a "sleeping" feature that steals any payment containing more than i.e 1000 bcs, or all payments happening on April 1st.
And the malevolent developer can rest assured that nobody could have prevent it, since nobody can compare the binary to the source code.

An application that supports the very-existence of "money" is not the same as any other application we have ever come acrosss.
The rules don't apply the same.
I don't see why is it coercive or bad attitude to insist on adopting a more freedom-enforcing lisence for technical reasons?

Please, Satoshi, i urge you to rethink, and stop contributing to the MIT-licensed client and continue working on a GPL-version.

Closed source implementations can exist no matter what license you use (they can just reimplement).

Do you have the impression that one or more individuals within our community that may indicate, suggest or to have admitted to use a proprietary closed source Bitcoin-related application is indicative that "we encourage closed-source implementations?"  Who is "we?"  Is "we" a kind of central authoritative figure?  I think there will be individuals that pursue their own decisions, choices that may conflict with others, however, it should not be considered that if one or more individuals share the same or similar decision or choice, even if such decision or choice is majority, that "we" as a community are representative of that choice.

I think there may be confusion being generated about this topic.  Perhaps a poll can help to provide a better understanding as to how others feel about using proprietary clients.  However, again..


That is a good point that should be reiterated for these types of discussions.

For example, if Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Apple, etc. were to show acceptance of Bitcoin but release a proprietary version that is integrated within their product (e.g. proprietary implementation integrated into ps3/ps4, just like all the other proprietariness within), there is no point in arguing against Sony's actions.  Arguing about it is pointless.  In the case of Sony designing their own proprietary implementation integrated into their hardware, there most likely will also be an initiative to hack the system and to provide an open source implementation anyway, and for those that are geek enough, they will probably use the open source version instead.  For those that just want things to work (majority, mostly computer-illiterate and prefer to consume time pursuing other activities anyway), then they will use proprietary version.

In the case of Bitcoin, the open source version is currently the dominant version.  It is the most recognized or the first noticed.  As far as I can tell, proprietary versions of Bitcoin haven't been advertised to the masses more so than the official open source Bitcoin client, so although there is discussion about the particular version, it isn't taking over or becoming more popular than open source version.

It is probably most productive and best for the community overall for those advocating open source and against proprietary to learn how to program (if not already familiar), rather than arguing for it whilst expecting everyone else to develop/program open source alternative.  While it can be argued that one is not a developer or doesn't have necessary skill, perhaps that is just a sign of laziness or unwillingness to stand up for one's beliefs.  It would be more reputable, admirable if one were to pursue their argument by contributing towards development to support their argument.

On a side note, Macho, is that you in my profile picture?  *chuckle*

This is another example of a knee-jerk reaction you see. And exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. You do not really disagree with any of the arguments, you just want to have a stab at me because you feel like you're being told what to do or think. That doesn't mean that what I'm saying isn't the right course of action or that you would disagree that it is, it's just your ego provoking an irrational response without any real basis. Let me give an another example demonstrating what's happening here:

A guy stands in front of a window preparing to jump, someone comes along and tries to persuade him not to because he is going to hurt himself. Some other guy notices this and interprets it as someone telling others what to do and rushes to the window guy 'defense', attacking the one who is trying to persuade him not to jump: "Why are you telling others what to do?", maybe starts mocking him: "Do you believe there are any matters that should be left to people's own discretion, without deferring to your wisdom?". You see, his only focus is the fact that someone is giving arguments to another in order to persuade him that his course of action is unwise (which he interprets as 'telling others what to do') and does not pay attention to whether said arguments are in fact valid or not and the guy preparing to jump could really hurt himself - he doesn't care about that. Others may join in and attack the guy further: "You do not know how deep it is under the window, maybe he won't hurt himself" (aka "You can not be sure we can not trust closed-source, maybe they won't rip us off"), "There is no reason to discourage him from jumping, he can just jump tomorrow anyway", "We shouldn't put banister on balcony, people can jump anyway"  (aka "People can just make the software from scratch anyway").

All these arguments are so transparently irrational to me that I can not imagine anyone not seeing that. The above situation is what I see when I read the thread. I'm saying that bitcoin is going to 'jump out of the window' and hurt itself if we encourage closed-source implementations and people are attacking me for 'telling them what to do' instead of looking at whether the arguments I present are actually valid. They do not disagree that bitcoin can be hurt by closed-source, they just do not like being told so by me or something. It's really incomprehensible to me why people react like this, it's probably our twisted culture. If we wouldn't be so reactionary, we wouldn't be so easily controlled and manipulated. You can almost literally cause people to jump from the window by telling them that the person telling them not to is 'telling them what to do' and therefore they should do exact opposite ... and people apparently consider that a valid reason, it's upside down.

But I'm sure folks are going to jump all over me again for 'telling them what to do', 'talking down to them', 'being condescending' or whatever emotional ego reaction they're going to have rather than consider whether what I'm saying is true or not. They're going to 'defend' the right of the guy to jump from the window rather than joining me in persuading him not to because it's foolish. Yeah well, if there is not some personal growth encouraged in the bitcoin community, it is going to be subverted, hijacked and neutralized extremely easily ... closed-source software is one of the options to do exactly that and you're even inviting people to do it instead guarding against it, incredible!

Do you believe there are any matters that should be left to people's own discretion, without deferring to your wisdom?

Now, this may be a little extreme example, but it demonstrates the issue quite well I think:

It "restricts the freedom" of the developers in similar way that laws against rape "restrict the freedom" of rapists to rape. It makes no sense to use or encourage closed-source client any more than asking for rape. Using closed-source client is like walking trough dark isolated street alone in the middle of the night ... you are asking for it. And you are going to get it sooner or later.

Now those screaming "I can trust whoever I want, that's none of your business", sure ... that's like I would tell somebody not to go that dark street because it is known for its crime and these people would start screaming that I'm not going to tell them what to do and they're going to go trough that street anyway. It's childish knee-jerk reaction, they do not really disagree that it is dangerous, they do not disagree that they're going to get raped ... they just want to go there because somebody suggested they shouldn't. It's like when you want a kid to open a box, simply tell them not to, they're guaranteed to open it. Reverse psychology. Really incredible that adults are so susceptible to that, or maybe I'm talking to teenagers?


I've already responded to that, does that mean we should make it easy for them? We are going in circles ... that's not an argument for using MIT, that's just an excuse for one of its pitfalls (which GPL doesn't have).


That is a disadvantage, not advantage. We DO NOT want anybody to combine it with any kind of any different license, that would compromise its freedom and therefore security, put many people at risk and endanger the whole bitcoin project. Now, I wouldn't call that a good thing, would you?

What gets me so frustrated here is that people really do not think things through, they just react with a knee-jerk reactions most of the time. I'm not mad at you who write those responses really, I'm mad at those stupid posts So I apologize if I've came off too harsh. Then people just feel like opposing me because I'm "rude" and do not rationally think about the issues, they change into reactionary creatures fighting for their tribe ... it's unfortunate people react like that. There has been not one rational reason for using MIT license over GPL and people still feel like arguing for MIT and I'm unable to understand why except for some psychological issues causing this. Satochi did not answer the questions too, maybe he realized that MIT license makes no sense but instead of admitting that and simply changing it he is ignoring this thread and acting like it wouldn't exist. Sad that people are prone to decide on what they'd like to be true instead of what is actually true ...

That is a good point that should be reiterated for these types of discussions.

Even if we think it is always best to use an open source client, there are still circumstances when the MIT license would be a valid choice.

One of the characteristics of the MIT license is that it is compatible with most other licenses. That way, you can write a new client which combines the MIT-licensed code with code that is under some other kind of license.

Perhaps this will enable someone to write an open source client that combines parts of the existing implementation with existing GUI libraries, database frameworks, logging utilities, etc etc.

The flexibility of the MIT license is a big help if you want to encourage the adoption of niche software.

Whom I or anyone else chooses to trust or not trust, is not for you to decide.


Look here, I can give you my reasons for trusting anyone in particular, should I choose to do so. But I don't get to demand other people's reasons, and neither do you.

Macho, the GPL license doesn't stop anyone from making a closed source client. It just requires them to write it from scratch (or be dishonest and use Bitcoin code).

Note who gets and loses freedom in each case. The GPL restricts the freedom of the developer and maintains the freedom of the user to modify the system. BSD/MIT gives the developer the freedom to restrict the freedom of the user to do such modifications. Which license you like can depend on who you are.

Of course most of us are really both here. It is really interesting to note how the gcc (GNU compiler) remains under the GPL, where the programmers are the users, and is even used on many BSD operating systems. (Yes I know there are efforts to change that.)

Whooh there!!... I'm not trying to be against you. Just trying to have a normal discussion, nothing personal. It is normal that people might have different opinions about something. As for my reasons in this discussion, see below.



Ok, to be clear about my point. I've been using FOSS for over 15 years now and I don't care if it is GPL or MIT. They are both open source and free. That is the pro against closed source licenses for me. If a developer chooses one or the other, it is his choice, I can't force him to use an other license if I haven't written any code myself. If I don't agree with this, I write my own code and place it under my license of choice, or I shut up. I would love to see the/a client under a GPL license and I think I would prefer to use that one over the MIT one, but there is currently no GPL one, so I have to do with the MIT one and that is fine with me (as long as I have the basic rights that define it as FOSS).

Now, back to the GPL vs MIT discussion. Both licenses were once made to give the user the freedom to use the software how he/she wants to use it. But the licenses have a different view about the freedom. GPL restricts the user in taking these freedoms away (copyleft), making it in BSD eyes less free. BSD/MIT on the other hand give the freedom to take freedoms away from the user. Two different point of views causing a dilemma about which one is more free. But, IMHO both are valid to use. Personally I don't mind the copyleft restriction of the GPL, but you also have to respect other peoples opinion that this "hypocritical" restriction should not be needed in the first place.

I have enough thrust in FOSS that the open source MIT client will keep its leading edge over future closed source ones as long as it keeps actively developed and keeps support of its community.

You mean like whether you can *trust* it? THAT'S MY FREAKING POINT and it's spelled out in my previous post! Based on what are you going to trust the source? Whether it is large enough? Microsoft sure can be trusted ... or how nice of a logo they have? Maybe your friend is CEO? Is he expected to be personal friend with everyone who uses the software? How does it depend on the source? Please... share this ultimate wisdom with me.


No, anyone who posts several messages without giving ANY reason why MIT would be preferred to GPL is an irrational person. You can not give a reason because there is no reason. The only thing left except admitting that, is calling people names, there is no rational reason against using GPL ... if there was, you would stated it already. But you must be an Internet hero and argue your case to the death no matter how wrong you are. That kind of mentality just makes me mad, as you may have noticed and you call me a zealot, lol

I believe that users themselves may decide which client is better to use.
If a proprietary client steals money, there is no fault of the community...

A closed source client is a bad idea.

But this is why users should prefer an open source client. It's not the software developer's job to decide this for the end user.

It depends on the source.


It depends on the source.


Question invalid due to previous answers.


Anyone who says "why would you be against GPL? it makes no sense" is a zealot.  Each licensing option has its own time and place.

Theoretically yes.  Practically?  No.

Given all the variables -- compiler, compiler platform, compiler version, compiler options, linked library versions of all our dependent libraries -- this is quite difficult.

Linux has various including GNU General Public License, BSD License, Apache License, MIT License, and other licenses
Apache has an Apache license
MySQL has GNU General Public License (version 2, with linking exception) or proprietary EULA
PHP has a PHP license

Asterisk has GNU General Public License
Avidemux has GNU General Public License
Blender has GNU General Public License v2 or later
Cinelerra has GNU General Public License
ffmpeg has GNU LGPL 2.1+, GNU GPL 2+
Gimp has GNU General Public License
GNU Compiler Collection has GNU General Public License (version 3 or later)
LiVES has GNU General Public License version 3 or higher.
MPlayer has GNU General Public License
OpenOffice has GNU Lesser General Public License v3
OpenVPN has GNU GPL
OpenX has GNU General Public License
VirtualDub has GNU General Public License
VLC has GNU General Public License v2 or later
xine has GNU GPL

There are very few open source applications that I've noticed that have MIT license.  Perhaps in deciding upon MIT license or another license a kind of role model should be considered and to perhaps discuss with other communities about their perspective on licensing.

http://www.cio.com/article/32146/Open_Source_The_Myths_of_Open_Source

Proprietary versions of Bitcoin client will profit AND escalate all support to be handled by the open source, willing-to-help community at no cost to proprietary designer.