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 515132
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sat 21st Apr 2012 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
ParadoxUncreated
Member since:
2009-12-05

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:
2006-07-04

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[4]: hm?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 07:03 in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

As a point of order, Linus' opinion of GPL V3 is sort of academic or at least only an opinion with no other weight.

The Kernel is licensed under GPL V2 Only. Not GPL V2 or any later version.
He's not the only contributor to the kernel, as such he would need the explicit approval of everyone to ever contribute code that is present in the kernel in order to re-license it as GPL V3. That is simply not practical.

Reply Parent Score: 6

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:
2006-07-14

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

RE[4]: hm?
by dsmogor on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 21:38 in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

That's the best justification for existence of both licenses I have read in years! BSD for software that showcases and heralds an information (like a standard that's is meant to be free and shared)., ale but GPL for software that carries the value itself and is meant to be a standard, and a baseline for cooperation, and even if it's somehow forced by its restrictive nature.
Without GPL there simply wouldn't be a vibrant community of hackers around Android handsets that hw manufacturers are obliged to release kernels for.

Reply Parent Score: 4