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 515215
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Practical considerations
by Valhalla on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:36 UTC in reply to "Practical considerations"
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

Personally, as an open source developer, I try to choose the license with the least restrictions possible.

That's your choice and I applaud your generosity.


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.

And the BSD projects can't use GPL licenced code while Linux don't have that problem and can use BSD licenced code, go figure.

The reason ZFS is incompatible with GPL was by design as Sun was facing severe competition from Linux and didn't want to allow it to use their key technology.


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.

Eh? The GPLv2 licence says 'or later', so unless the 'GPLv2' project has removed the 'or later' clause then they are in no way incompatible. Only project I know of which has done so is Linux, however even here it's not the end of the road as you can dual-licence your code.


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

It's only incompatible with signing keys for secure booting if it doesn't allow the end user to sign keys, like with UEFI on Microsoft approved ARM machines. If the end user is allowed to sign keys to be valid then there's no problem with GPLv3.

Personally I see this as a great feature of GPLv3 as I don't want hardware which is artificially crippled to only boot code signed by a third party.

Reply Parent Score: 5