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 515134
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
BSD vs GPL - again
by toast88 on Sat 21st Apr 2012 22:05 UTC
Member since:

And here we go, yet another GPL vs BSD flame war. Aren't these getting boring?

What's the point of discussing these? Most projects and contributors have already lined out why they're using the GPL, they want to make sure that companies and enterprises who take advantage of free software actually contribute something back which is simply not the case and which is why BSD is not widely adopted.

The reason why Linux and associated projects like KDE and GNOME have become so massively successful is the GPL and hence there won't be a shift regarding the use of it.

It doesn't matter whether many small projects jump to using BSD or similar licenses as long as the most important projects like the Linux kernel, KDE, GNOME, gcc, VideoLAN, wine, GIMP, emacs, inkscape, LibreOffice and so on. And, of course, I'm using the GPL/LGPL for my own projects.

The GPL-backed Linux runs on more architectures than any other operating system ever conceived, supports more features than any operating system ever conceived, powers 90% of the top500, powers hundreds of millions of smart phones, most web servers and so much more. Still people come out of their caves and claim how superior *BSD is ;) . *yawn*

Reply Score: 3