"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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
Member since:2007-03-30
Member since:2010-10-27
Member since:2006-01-29
I doubt so.
As BeamishBoy has mentioned, it wouldn't exist if it was released with GPLv3. Furthermore, due to the complexity of the GPL, it is debatable how it applies to binary kernel modules. [1] Currently, using binary kernel modules is allowed, even though according to different interpretations of the GPL, some or all should be disallowed. If the strictest interpretation of GPL would be applied, the Linux ecosystem would be much more limited. So actually part of the popularity of Linux is attributable to the fact that the Linux authors decided not to strictly apply the limitations of the GPL. (Ironically, strictly enforcing the GPL, or moving it to GPL3 would cause greater adoption of, and more contributions to BSD kernels.) Thus, the Linux kernel is more of an example of what a mess living with the GPL is, than how great the GPL is.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Loadable_kernel_modules_a...
Edit: typo.
Edited 2012-04-21 23:58 UTC
Member since:2005-08-18
Really? I could swear that many companies, for example Zimbra, provide community and commercial versions of their products where the commercial one contains proprietary code that never makes it to the community version.
Considering Linus dislike for some parts of GPL2 and all of GPL3 then yes, it probably would. He has himself said that picking GPL was purely a practical decision and that he might have gone with BSD if it hadn't been for the At&T vs Berkely thing.
Member since:2005-11-14
Member since:2012-01-25
That is very important, we are programmers not lawyers. Most of us would rather not have a license at all, but unfortunately due to how insane everyone seems to have become over copyright it is a necessity. So a short license that is readable at a glance much appreciated, I have tried to read the GPL several times and I still don't understand what is and isn't acceptable use of source.. So I avoid it.
Member since:
2005-06-29
GPLv3: 5120 words.
Modified BSD license: 220 words.
I rest my case.