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 515142
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: hm?
by BeamishBoy on Sat 21st Apr 2012 23:02 UTC 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[5]: hm?
by BeamishBoy on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 19:23 in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
BeamishBoy Member since:
2010-10-27

How is "I expect to be paid back through code when you use my code" extreme or ideological?


It's not. Then again, I didn't even remotely suggest that it was.

But of course you knew that already.

Reply Parent Score: 1

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