Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Apr 2012 19:25 UTC
Permalink for comment 515115
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-28
You may rest your case on the complexity issue, but the GPL v3 is a much better license on many fronts,, but particularly if you care about the issue of software patents as you seem to care.
I seriously doubt that GPL use is declining. It remains the license of choice for about sixty percent of projects, according to the article´s data and their projections may very well never be realized.
Of course, big proprietary vendors have been speaking ill of the GPL for a long time now and their marketing departments has spent a lot of money casting doubts and aspersions on the GPL, simply because it does not allow the release of proprietary software based on said code, something that the BSD license does allow.
In any case, software developers should think about what they want their project to be.
Would the Linux kernel exist today without the GPL and the friendly ecosystem around the code that it helped build?
I doubt so.