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 515153
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Practical considerations
by jessesmith on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 01:43 UTC
Member since:

Personally, as an open source developer, I try to choose the license with the least restrictions possible. The reason is simply that it makes it easier for people to use my code in the future and it avoids all sorts of little gatchas.

It's not even the closed source vs open source issues which make GPL a pain to work with. The GPL is hard to work with for open source projects too. For example....

Linux can't include ZFS in the mainline kernel, even though both the kernel and ZFS are open source. It's a problem BSD projects don't have.

GPLv2 and GPLv3 aren't compatible, which was a huge mistake. It means if two projects were both GPLv2 and were sharing patches, and then one project updates to GPLv3 the code can only flow in one direction.

GRUB Legacy (GPLv2) can use signing keys for secure booting, but GRUBv2 (which is GPLv3) can't.

I use the GPLv2 from time to time, but it throws up walls to cooperation. I don't think that's healthy. The GPL has its place, but most of the time it is more trouble than it is a help, especially since GPLv3 came out.

Reply Score: 3