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 515135
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 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
ParadoxUncreated
Member since:
2009-12-05

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.

Reply Parent Score: -7

RE[3]: hm?
by bassbeast on Sat 21st Apr 2012 23:01 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

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

v RE[4]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 22:44 in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
RE[3]: hm?
by BeamishBoy on Sat 21st Apr 2012 23:02 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
BeamishBoy Member since:
2010-10-27

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[4]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 01:38 in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

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.


How is "I expect to be paid back through code when you use my code" extreme or ideological? Sounds pretty pragmatic to me.

Sorry, but "freedom, even if it means freedom to not pay back/forward", IS ideological.

Nothing wrong with ideological. Don't use ideological in a pejorative sense.

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[4]: hm?
by lemur2 on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 01:58 in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"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.
"

This is a commonly expressed viewpoint, but it is a complete red herring.

The GPL doesn't apply to THEIR code (unless they want it to). The GPL only applies to code someone else wrote and placed under the GPL.

The recipient of GPL code simply doesn't get the luxury to find the restrictions of the GPL objectionable, because it isn't their code to which those restrictions apply.

Edited 2012-04-22 02:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: hm?
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 01:37 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

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:
2005-08-18

Oh the irony.

Reply Parent Score: 2