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 515139
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: hm?
by bassbeast on Sat 21st Apr 2012 22:44 UTC in reply to "hm?"
bassbeast
Member since:
2007-11-11

Lets all just point out the elephant in the room, okay? the problem with GPL is V3 which is as anti-business as RMS could possibly make it. this frankly is not surprising, as the man does gush on and on at Stallman.org about how wonderful Chavez is while ironically constantly railing on "big brother" corporations being a threat to "freedom".

But RMS is gonna find out that its businesses paying for FOSS and when they won't touch it with a 50 foot pole? Well you get to see what happens. if you don't want others using your code there are frankly over a dozen licenses out there for you to choose from, or you can roll your own. But if you go with GPL V3 you can say goodbye to most of the appstores and you can say goodbye to most corporations wanting to buy from you, GPL V3 simply isn't in their best interests. Heck look at Google, the darling of the FOSS world, and even THEY won't allow any GPL V3 code to touch Android or ChromeOS!

You are seeing this backlash because RMS hates corporations and put as many blocks as he could in GPL V3. within 3 years we shall see who was right, Stallman and his new GPL or the corps but I have a feeling that MPL or some other license will be switched to and GPL will slowly wither just as we are seeing, simply because no company is gonna bankroll software that is hostile to them.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: hm?
by Kivada on Sat 21st Apr 2012 23:57 in reply to "RE: hm?"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

True, but most corporate interests are not in the interest of the greater good, they only want to run a forced obsolesce scam on the general public to keep you paying for the same software they themselves may not have written.

I say most because at least companies like AMD that provide the specs for OSS drivers allow for the public to keep their hardware working for long after the company has stopped supporting it, which is the way it should be.

You're still more then welcome to keep throwing money at companies that contribute little to nothing though.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: hm?
by Valhalla on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:14 in reply to "RE: hm?"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

the problem with GPL is V3 which is as anti-business as RMS could possibly make it.

Please point out how GPLv3 is extremely 'anti-business' as opposed to GPLv2? The major changes to GPLv3 was that it strenghtened the patent protection and prevented tivo-ization, the latter is the one which Linus strongly objected too and the one thing which could be concieved as anti-business, however that only apply to tivo-style business (not allowing the end user to run their own versions of software on a system).

Both these major changes were perfectly in line with what GPL stands for, which is the right to recieve, modify and run the modified code.


But RMS is gonna find out that its businesses paying for FOSS and when they won't touch it with a 50 foot pole?

GCC is GPLv3 licenced and has tons of corporate support, IBM, Red Hat, Google, etc are employing programmers to work fulltime on GCC, and corporations like Intel, AMD, continously contribute code.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:22 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"the problem with GPL is V3 which is as anti-business as RMS could possibly make it.

Please point out how GPLv3 is extremely 'anti-business' as opposed to GPLv2? The major changes to GPLv3 was that it strenghtened the patent protection and prevented tivo-ization, the latter is the one which Linus strongly objected too and the one thing which could be concieved as anti-business, however that only apply to tivo-style business (not allowing the end user to run their own versions of software on a system).
"

You illustrate an important point. To a business person, any competition is anti-business, because to a business person, the only business that matters is their business. If something hurts their competitors but not them, they'll say it's fine, while their competitor will say it's anti-business.

Business and financial people are sharks, the lot of them. Trust them only as far as they trust you.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: hm?
by ParadoxUncreated on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:37 in reply to "RE: hm?"
ParadoxUncreated Member since:
2009-12-05

RMS is not anti-business. GPL is not anti-business.

I do however believe that my attempts at rational dialogue, and exchange of facts, leading to reasonable logical conclusions, are failing most of the time at osnews.

So we will let the art speak: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BH7poMtPVU

Edited 2012-04-22 12:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: hm?
by Soulbender on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 13:06 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I do however believe that my attempts at rational dialogue, and exchange of facts, leading to reasonable logical conclusions, are failing most of the time at osnews.


You, sir, is an absolute riot.

Reply Parent Score: 3