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 515177
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: hm?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 07:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

If it`s derived from GPL, it must be GPL`d.

If it is alongside GPL, I guess not. But the GPL component must be opensource and provided with the product.

That seems to be the general thinking.


Kind of, but that gets confusing when you start talking about issues like the GPL only flag in the kernel, the class path exemption, or how to do that with scripting languages that are not compiled or linked together.

I do like both GPL and BSD licenses, there are valid use cases for both. GPL for great projects where you want contribution from the community, and BSD for when you do want companies to build off of your code base and deeply integrate it with in their products. The BSD is especially nice when trying to get everyone to use a particular standard for operation ( like say TCP/IP ;) ).

Reply Parent Score: 8