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 515126
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: hm?
by jigzat on Sat 21st Apr 2012 21:20 UTC in reply to "hm?"
jigzat
Member since:
2008-10-30

If you are willing to let your code go away you should not care if someone else makes a fortune out of it? That is as "selfish" as keeping your code proprietary.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: hm?
by BluenoseJake on Sat 21st Apr 2012 21:33 in reply to "RE: hm?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I'm pretty sure giving something away, with no strings attached, could be considered a definition of selfless.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: hm?
by lemur2 on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 01:55 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm pretty sure giving something away, with no strings attached, could be considered a definition of selfless.


I'm pretty sure that taking something, giving nothing back for it, yet still charging downstream recipients for essentially that same thing re-packaged, could be considered the definition of selfish.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: hm?
by Kivada on Sat 21st Apr 2012 23:48 in reply to "RE: hm?"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

No,the GPL is share and share alike, BSD is more akin to a Buddhist that seeks his own personal enlightenment when those around him suffer.

Sure the BSD license seems like a nice gesture, but all it does is ensure that the megacorps can continue to have complete control over the entire industry, while the GPL creates a level playing field for everyone.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: hm?
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 02:21 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Sure the BSD license seems like a nice gesture, but all it does is ensure that the megacorps can continue to have complete control over the entire industry, while the GPL creates a level playing field for everyone.


Imagine you're a software development company and you decide you want to do a little "Freewashing"; in other words, make a few meaningless gestures to give the appearance that you support "Free(tm)" software without going all-in, or maybe to lure in some suckers to do free development work for you. So you decide to release a "community edition" of your existing commercial software, what license are you gonna choose, BSD? HELL no! That would let your competitors take the code and do whatever they want with it. Instead, you're probably going to release the software under GPL3.

That lets you (for example) release a "Free(tm)" version of a web application & plaster it with your branding and copyright notices. Then you can do things that would be considered dickish even with commercial licenses, like use the "legal notices" clause so that if anyone removes your branding, you can then threaten to go after them for GPL infringement (*cough-cough* http://www.cynapse.com/resources/cynin-gpl-v3-open-source-license *cough-cough*). But because you've released your software as GPL, you can still play the good guy and justify your actions as "protecting Freedom(tm)" or some other noble-sounding BS.

So despite your "BSD lets megacorps control the entire industry" hand-wringing, the reality is that GPL3 is much more "megacorp"-friendly than the BSD license.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: hm?
by cade on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 02:27 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
cade Member since:
2009-02-28

In many cases, where applicable, a lot of people suffer because they choose not to enlighten themselves.

If the GPL creates a level playing field then why is it that the number of Windows desktops thrashes the number of Linux/etc. desktops in the world. Megacorps like Microsoft get by since many consumers refuse or don't realise that they can enlighten themselves in regards to alternative solutions (OS, programs, etc). It's like when layman people invest in Microsoft Office and then I mention the merits of apps like OpenOffice (especially the nil cost) and then they wakeup. Complete control occurs when the "sheep" decide they want to be controlled, decide not to make a stand towards personal enlightenment.

There are people who code for the love of coding and the love of the coded project and have no problems with sharing their efforts through a BSD licence.

While the code may benefit some "evil" mega-corps, the code also has the potential to benefit many other entities be it the student, academician, professional, consultant, etc. within a no-strings-attached context.


This is not the 1980's/1990's where Microsoft had free reign. Who would have thought that Microsoft would contribute to the Linux space. I remember reading Microsoft's marketing material against Linux in the late 1990's, they were scared of Linux back then. Consider the Google/Apple app stores and the rise of standards like OpenGL, etc.

With society-based enlightenment comes a more level playing field.

Reply Parent Score: 1

v RE[3]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:08 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"