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 515129
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: hm?
by BluenoseJake on Sat 21st Apr 2012 21:33 UTC 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[4]: hm?
by galvanash on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 05:49 in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

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.


That's it, in a nutshell, right there... The BSD license is for the unselfish. The GPL license is for forcing other people to be unselfish.

I have nothing against the GPL, I'm just saying maybe all the loudmouth GPL proponents that talk about how it is "better" should consider that some people simply don't feel the need to police other people's behavior - they just want to write code and share it with whoever is interested...

Edited 2012-04-22 05:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: hm?
by lucas_maximus on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 09:19 in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

If you give something away do you have the right to stipulate what a person does with it?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: hm?
by lucas_maximus on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 09:22 in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

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.


The same thing happens to any BSD code that is forked and GPLd, any modifications to the fork are under the GPL and can't be backported to the original BSD code.

I would say that was selfish as well, using the your same logic.

Edited 2012-04-22 09:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: hm?
by BluenoseJake on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 23:48 in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I agree, all I said was that giving your code away for free, for anybody to use in anyway they want, is selfless.

I didn't say, mean or intend any other statement

Reply Parent Score: 2