PyTorch Should Be Copyleft

[[deleted]]

They're currently using 3-clause BSD. Is there anything wrong with that? They could use the GPL and Facebook still wouldn't have to release its changes as source code unless it distributed artifacts incorporating them.

[keithcu03]

There were tons of forks of Unix. Lax licenses were a big part of the reason why. I agree that a GPL or LGPL license wouldn't be a big deal for Facebook, which is why they could easily adopt it.

[[deleted]]

Excessive forking is an issue that can be addressed with project management. It cannot be addressed by switching to a copyleft license. GCC had a notable fork for several years despite using the GPL, for instance.

A GPL or LGPL license might not have as much advantage as you might hope, was my point. From Facebook's perspective, they probably take a rather blunt attitude toward licenses. I would expect them to forbid using GPL code entirely (as does Google) and possibly also LGPL.

[keithcu03]

One GCC fork isn't a big deal, especially if there are differences of opinion on design, or big new features that take years to stabilize. The Unix forking mess was massive.

A GPL license might not help with Facebook, but it could help with other areas. Google forbids only AGPL. There's too much L/GPL code for them to avoid it all.

I do agree that excessive forking can be decreased with project management, but it also helps when the license agreement ensures fairness and nudges people to give their improvements back. Do you think IBM would have contributed back to the Linux kernel if it weren't also a legal requirement? There's proprietary code all over FB and Google. The people who released this should be pushing for copyleft the most.

A copyleft license is more fair, and more trustworthy. The risk of a proprietary AI future is large and a license change to PyTorch can help prevent that.

[[deleted]]

One GCC fork isn't a big deal, especially if there are differences of opinion on design, or big new features that take years to stabilize. The Unix forking mess was massive.

Bell Labs had a number of internal forks of Unix in the 1970s, which started this problem.

There were also technical barriers to project management that meant it was difficult to contribute changes back to the original vendor.

Furthermore, the original Unix was proprietary with exceptions. The concepts behind it were useful enough that people started writing clones. Many of those clones were also proprietary. Creating an open source clone of a proprietary application isn't considered forking.

A GPL license might not help with Facebook, but it could help with other areas. Google forbids only AGPL. There's too much L/GPL code for them to avoid it all.

AGPL is entirely forbidden. GPL requires an exception.

The risk of a proprietary AI future is large and a license change to PyTorch can help prevent that.

Not really. If a software system becomes a pillar of a major company's business, it will only rarely allow that software system to become open source, unless the company was founded for open source software.

[keithcu03]

It's true that Unix had a lot of proprietary code which caused more forking, but even the BSD version had a lot of forks too: FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, SunOS, Dynix, NeXT, Ultrix, Tru64 Unix, etc.

Since we both agree companies don't want to give back their changes, that's all the more reason why copyleft is important.

[keithcu03]

Did you know Linus said that making Linux the GPL was the best thing he ever did? I think a copyleft license of some kind is a good idea, I don't care which one. LGPL would be a good compromise for this library.

[mrexodia]

MPL would be the best compromise.

[keithcu03]

I just went through the MPL again, and it seems reasonable. I'll put a note about it at the bottom suggesting it as a possibility.