Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Apr 2012 19:25 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source "A new analysis of licensing data shows that not only is use of the GPL and other copyleft licenses continuing to decline, but the rate of disuse is actually accelerating." This shouldn't be surprising. The GPL is complex, and I honestly don't blame both individuals and companies opting for simpler, more straightforward licenses like BSD or MIT-like licenses.
Permalink for comment 515113
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: hm?
by MollyC on Sat 21st Apr 2012 20:01 UTC in reply to "hm?"
Member since:

Isn't BSD less complex because folks can use is as they please without worrying about impacting the rest of their code?

When I used to frequent Slashdot years ago, even GPL-proponents argued about what constituted GPL violations and what didn't. For instance, given a piece of GPL code or a GPL library, there were discussions about what methods of using the code would impact the rest of one's code such that one would be forced to release all that code under GPL if one released the finished product. For example, there were dicussions on which of merging code, static linking to libraries, dynamic linking to libs, manually loading of libs, talking to libs via RPC or pipes or COM or whatever, etc would constitute "deriving" from the GPL code and thus requiring all the code to be GPL'ed.

There were arguments wrt GPL vs LGPL.

There were arguments on use of GPL in hardware (would releasing hardware that internally used GPL code be considered releasing a software product that used GPL code and therefore necessitate GPLing all code that the hardware used).

There was talk of using dual-license techniques, where a company releases a product under GPL and releases another version under some other license as a way to honor GPL's ideals while getting around it at the same time.

Then RMS muddied the waters with GPL3 and forbidding using GPL3 code with any code that used DRM or was patent-encumbered or whatever (slashdotters argued about what GPL3 actually did and what it didn't). And Linus rejected GPL3 for Linux, which further complicated matters.

And on and on. And these arguments were between GPL proponents, let alone the GPL detractors.

With BSD, you don't have to worry about any of that crap.

Reply Parent Score: 5