11–20 of 35 posts
But sadly, not a mention of the controversy of the new version was made (directly). Some interesting points about the change in focus were made, but I think that v3 played a large part.
This is an unfortunate pan of GPL and a clearly business-sided discussion of licensing. Developers use GPL to keep their work in the open and encourages everyone working on a project to share their work. On the other hand, "permissive" licenses are well received by businesses because the work produced under BSD-like licenses are perceived as "free labor". So here's the rub. Businesses want free labor, but they want t…
It's Capitalism if the labor isn't forced. Capitalism allows for citizens to willingly participate in any sort of arrangement. Sharing is just another form or voluntary participation in the system. Socialism uses the monopolistic threat of violence and incarceration to force arrangements predetermined by the State. See the difference?
even more pronounced when you look at web software. look at the most watched projects on Github and play spot the GPL license: https://github.com/popular/watched I couldn't count a single project. I have never used the GPL in any software I write because I want anybody to be able to use my software and contributions. Google, Microsoft, Apple (who are actively purging what remains of GPL code) et al will not adapt you…
jQuery Diaspora Linux
large parts of Diaspora are also dual-licensed (not sure what the breakdown is).
I am still going through the list and haven't found a single GPL-only licensed project
The "practicality" argument doesn't hold water with me: none of it matters without freedom. If you care about code, the GPL gives you freedom by requiring that people give back in the manner they take: with code. It is only necessary because people weren't giving back. I can understand that someone might want to shirk the quid-pro-quo responsibilities of the GPL, but I won't be paying for that kind of anti-social pro…
It's the old "you can catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar". The GPL is the strongest vinegar to businesses that may not mind participating in open source, but don't want to have their business assets dependent upon something so restrictive. As a developer you have a trade-off decision to make: Choose the license that restricts the use of your creation in hopes that it forces others to share, or choose a l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
jQuery Diaspora Linux
jQuery is also MIT licensed, which is why Microsoft was able to bundle it. large parts of Diaspora are also dual-licensed (not sure what the breakdown is). I am still going through the list and haven't found a single GPL-only licensed project
The "practicality" argument doesn't hold water with me: none of it matters without freedom. If you care about code, the GPL gives you freedom by requiring that people give back in the manner they take: with code. It is only necessary because people weren't giving back. I can understand that someone might want to shirk the quid-pro-quo responsibilities of the GPL, but I won't be paying for that kind of anti-social pro…
It's the old "you can catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar". The GPL is the strongest vinegar to businesses that may not mind participating in open source, but don't want to have their business assets dependent upon something so restrictive. As a developer you have a trade-off decision to make: Choose the license that restricts the use of your creation in hopes that it forces others to share, or choose a l…
There's more to the GPL than "religion". When you release code under BSD, MIT, or Apache, you give up all control of it. Anyone is free to commercialize it without adding any value. The better marketing & sales team can and will beat the origin of the software in the market.
If you're not sure whether you might someday want to make money from your code, GPL is the more pragmatic choice. You can always relicense BSD later --- but BSD, once picked, is forever.
The "practicality" argument doesn't hold water with me: none of it matters without freedom. If you care about code, the GPL gives you freedom by requiring that people give back in the manner they take: with code. It is only necessary because people weren't giving back. I can understand that someone might want to shirk the quid-pro-quo responsibilities of the GPL, but I won't be paying for that kind of anti-social pro…
"freedom by requiring" < see the contradiction? true freedom has no requirements or demands.
http://fosdem.org/2012/schedule/event/is_copyleft_being_fram...
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/03/03/142229/gpl-copyleft...
Black Duck Software don't publish their methodology, whereas John Sullivan does publish his (based on studying the license of Debian packages).
even more pronounced when you look at web software. look at the most watched projects on Github and play spot the GPL license: https://github.com/popular/watched I couldn't count a single project. I have never used the GPL in any software I write because I want anybody to be able to use my software and contributions. Google, Microsoft, Apple (who are actively purging what remains of GPL code) et al will not adapt you…