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.
Thread beginning with comment 515113
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: hm?
by MollyC on Sat 21st Apr 2012 20:01 UTC in reply to "hm?"
Member since:

Isn't BSD less complex because folks can use is as they please without worrying about impacting the rest of their code?

When I used to frequent Slashdot years ago, even GPL-proponents argued about what constituted GPL violations and what didn't. For instance, given a piece of GPL code or a GPL library, there were discussions about what methods of using the code would impact the rest of one's code such that one would be forced to release all that code under GPL if one released the finished product. For example, there were dicussions on which of merging code, static linking to libraries, dynamic linking to libs, manually loading of libs, talking to libs via RPC or pipes or COM or whatever, etc would constitute "deriving" from the GPL code and thus requiring all the code to be GPL'ed.

There were arguments wrt GPL vs LGPL.

There were arguments on use of GPL in hardware (would releasing hardware that internally used GPL code be considered releasing a software product that used GPL code and therefore necessitate GPLing all code that the hardware used).

There was talk of using dual-license techniques, where a company releases a product under GPL and releases another version under some other license as a way to honor GPL's ideals while getting around it at the same time.

Then RMS muddied the waters with GPL3 and forbidding using GPL3 code with any code that used DRM or was patent-encumbered or whatever (slashdotters argued about what GPL3 actually did and what it didn't). And Linus rejected GPL3 for Linux, which further complicated matters.

And on and on. And these arguments were between GPL proponents, let alone the GPL detractors.

With BSD, you don't have to worry about any of that crap.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sat 21st Apr 2012 22:01 in reply to "RE: hm?"
ParadoxUncreated Member since:

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. For instance GPL plugin/component in a nongpl software, does not require the whole software to be GPLd. That is pure sense, and I think sense is purely the basis for the whole thing, so be sensible.

RMS "muddied the waters"? I think Linus rejected it because most people in the kernel-crowd felt better with V2. Not because it was inferior. Atleast that is the impression I got from some of his statements on it.

If people want to discuss GPL by all means, it is better than being abused by someone who is making money and waiting for you to finish up your code to do it. And then implementing his own tweaks as I said, and not contributing it back to the community. That is worse than slavery, atleast slaves got something, these people get NOTHING.

Your use of the word crap, and "with BSD" as it is some kind of solution, it is no solution.

All we are saying is, we contributed code to you, you contribute code to us. And we work togheter on this, and evolve, and we won`t tolerate abuse in any way.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: hm?
by MollyC on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 04:42 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
MollyC Member since:

I didn't say GPL3 was inferior to GPL2*. But Linus rejecting GPL3 and sticking with GPL2 means there are currently two "blessed" GPL tracks going forward, which complicates matters.

* I didn't say GPL3 was inferior, but now that you bring it up, I do think GPL3 is inferior, because it was designed with RMS's religious goals at the expense of practicality, even more so than GPL2.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: hm?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 07:12 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:

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