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 515119
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: hm?
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 21st Apr 2012 20:26 UTC in reply to "hm?"
Member since:

If you release a project under the BSD, spent 10 years on it, and some dude just incorporates his proprietary thing into it, and makes a lot of money, don`t you feel some kind of injustice? There you are not getting any of that money, and they guy who only had the skill for his proprietary tweaks gets it all. That doesn`t seem like any just division of means, or correct reward for ones work in any way. More like a bully/facist/tyrant if you ask me.

Oh-em-gee, you mean people might actually use BSD-licensed code in a way that's specifically allowed by the BSD license? Those bastards!

Only a complete idiot would throw a hissy-fit over someone else using their code in a way that's clearly allowed by the BSD license, after knowingly releasing the code under that license.

Then again the BSD logo is a satan. I am sure all satans are proud to be abused.

Not only that, but Apple's logo is clearly satanic too, representing the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. AND they make use of BSD software, so Apple must be, like, doubly-satanic!

Wait... you were actually being serious, weren't you? Excuse me while I find a clean pair of pants, I seem to have pissed myself due to uncontrollable laughter.

Reply Parent Score: 16

v RE[2]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sat 21st Apr 2012 22:06 in reply to "RE: hm?"
RE[3]: hm?
by bassbeast on Sat 21st Apr 2012 23:01 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
bassbeast Member since:

Its a shame that we don't have a "-1 zealot" here because it is YOU sir that actually tried to compare the Daemon logo of BSD to some sort of evil....because you got all butthurt because you released code under a license you obviously didn't understand.

And it has nothing to do with being "cool" or not, it has to do with RMS simply not listening. You see to him the GPL is like the holy crusades, where compromise is simply not tolerated because everything and everyone other than him and his vision is the bad guy. As the head of Red hat so succinctly put it "RMS treats his friends as his enemies".

So you sir are simply seeing the fruit of that attitude. The GPL went too far with V3, RMS will never change it, so the developers are simply voting with their feet and going elsewhere. So unless you think others should be forced to use the GPL whether they want to or not there is simply nothing you can do or say to change this,because when even Linus and Google won't touch V3 you know its broken.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: hm?
by BeamishBoy on Sat 21st Apr 2012 23:02 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
BeamishBoy Member since:

It`s like the beos crowd here isn`t it. Where companies are worshipped, and GPL and linux uncool.

It's nothing - nothing - to do with what's cool or uncool. It's to do with people finding that the GPL places restrictions on their code - and on the use of their code by others - that they find to be utterly objectionable.

Honestly, the only people who seem to get excited by this sort of thing are hard-core GNU freetards who believe that everyone who doesn't accept their extreme ideology is evil.

Edited 2012-04-21 23:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: hm?
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 01:37 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:

It`s like the beos crowd here isn`t it. Where companies are worshipped, and GPL and linux uncool. Oh look it`s BSD BEOS. Which is "more together" than linux. LOL. You guys are clueless idiots. Grow up.

Riiiight. Go ahead, make even less sense, I dare you.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: hm?
by Soulbender on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 03:26 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
Soulbender Member since:

Oh the irony.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: hm?
by MollyC on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 04:45 in reply to "RE: hm?"
MollyC Member since:

I literally LOL'ed at your "tree of knowledge of good and evil" reference. lol

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: hm?
by Savior on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 06:23 in reply to "RE: hm?"
Savior Member since:

Not only that, but Apple's logo is clearly satanic too, representing the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Actually, the Bible does not call the fruit an apple, something it most likely wasn't. Apple Inc. is evil in its own right.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: hm?
by zima on Sat 28th Apr 2012 22:39 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
zima Member since:

It most likely wasn't anything but a story... (or perhaps the events inspiring it being so different to be almost unrecognizable, likely also a synthesis of many; what fruit it could be is a very minor dilemma)

Reply Parent Score: 2

v RE[2]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:28 in reply to "RE: hm?"