GNU GPL License

Copyleft Licenses suck.

Also, I ain't got time to read all that shit.

(CC0) Mar 3 2025 - Chris DeBoy More sections will be added as I think of them.

> But muh corpos!

Of the supporters of the GPL that I've encountered over the years, the overwhelming majority of them when justifying it claim that it protects your code from so-called "big-corpos", so they don't just "steal your code".

Actually, it doesn't, and if anything, counterintuitively does the opposite.

Your license is only as good as you are able to enforce it, meaning you have to be willing to take the offender to court and sue them, meaning you have to incur the cost of lawyers and court fees. Keep in mind "corporate" entities most likely have far more money than you can can not only hire much better and expensive lawyers than you, but they can tank the costs, whereas you likely can't. You could win the lawsuit and win up destitute.

Also, it's gonna be really hard to prove someone is in violation without first seeing their code. Take WinAmp, for example, which was in the past year open sourced, and it turns out they had been using quite a bit of GPL code for years as a closed-source project.

On top of this, code published under permissive licenses is going to be more beneficial to small upstarts, as they won't be forced to release any changes they make, allowing any competitive advantage they may have created to remain secret, at least for however long it takes for their innovation to be reverse-engineered, so they at least have a first-mover advantage.

> If everyone owns it, nobody does

Supporters of the GPL may sometimes say that since it requires you share the code, should you choose to distribute binaries incorporating your changes, that everyone owns the code. The problem with this is that if everyone owns the code, then nobody does.

Additional points to expand "If everyone owns it, nobody does":

  • Tragedy of the commons: Nobody has incentive to maintain/improve what everyone "owns"
  • No clear authority to make decisions about project direction
  • Creates prisoner's dilemma - everyone hopes someone else will do the work
  • Actual maintenance falls to unpaid volunteers while corporations benefit
  • "Commons" become abandoned when key contributors burn out

> The Scarcity Problem

Code is non-scarce:

  • Infinite copies possible with zero marginal cost
  • My use doesn't prevent your use
  • Information wants to be free (economically speaking)
  • Artificial scarcity through licensing is economically inefficient

What this means for GPL:

  • Trying to control non-scarce resources is like claiming ownership of math
  • GPL creates fake property rights where none should exist
  • Real property = scarce resources (land, physical objects, time)
  • Information/code = abundant resources that benefit from free flow

> The Socialist Trojan Horse

Stallman's admitted anti-capitalism:

  • Openly advocates for destroying software industry profit motive
  • Views proprietary software as morally wrong
  • GPL is designed to be viral and undermine business models
  • Uses capitalist legal frameworks (copyright) to advance anti-capitalist goals

Political enforcement through licensing:

  • Social pressure to use "ethical" licenses
  • Ideological purity tests in development communities
  • Attempts to control downstream behavior through legal mechanisms
  • Creates artificial barriers to business model innovation

> Practical Problems with Viral Licensing

GPL compatibility hell:

  • Can't mix GPL with other licenses easily
  • Creates legal uncertainty for projects
  • Forces "license laundering" workarounds
  • Discourages code reuse and collaboration

Stifles business model innovation:

  • SaaS loophole makes GPL irrelevant for modern software
  • Forces artificial separation between free/commercial versions
  • Dual licensing schemes benefit only original copyright holders
  • Creates perverse incentives for license shopping

Detection and enforcement issues:

  • Impossible to monitor all derivative works
  • Relies on voluntary compliance or whistleblowing
  • Corporate legal teams can find workarounds individual developers can't
  • Small violations go undetected while big ones get publicity

> Better Alternatives

Permissive licenses (MIT/BSD/Apache):

  • Clear terms, minimal restrictions
  • Encourages maximum code reuse
  • Allows business model experimentation
  • Reduces legal overhead

Public domain (CC0/Unlicense):

  • Eliminates legal uncertainty entirely
  • True gift to humanity
  • No enforcement burden
  • Aligns with non-scarce nature of information

Trade secrets for truly valuable IP:

  • Keep genuinely competitive advantages private
  • Release commodity code freely
  • Let market forces determine value
  • Avoid artificial legal complications

> The Real Solution: Abolish IP

  • Creates government-granted monopolies
  • Distorts natural market competition
  • Enables both corporate and socialist control schemes
  • Anti-capitalist state intervention

Without IP law:

  • No GPL enforcement mechanism
  • No patent trolling
  • Pure market competition based on value delivery
  • Natural cooperation emerges without coercion
  • First-mover advantages and complementary services become key

Market-based solutions would emerge:

  • Reputation systems for developers
  • Service-based business models
  • Network effects and user bases
  • Voluntary technical collaboration
  • Competition based on execution, not legal barriers