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 515171
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: hm?
by galvanash on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 05:33 UTC in reply to "hm?"
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

Why this refusal to go completely opensource, by people who for some reason, think that Microsoft or other company (Be) can do better than worldwide coders?


The BSD license is completely open source - it is pretty close the the epitome of the concept. The GPL, while having it's uses, is far less "open" if being open is your main goal. I'm not saying that the GPL is bad - but it is most definitely more constraining.

If you release a project under the BSD, spent 10 years on it, and some dude just incorporates his proprietary thing into it, and makes a lot of money, don`t you feel some kind of injustice?


Um... No. Why would I?

To clarify, if I released a project under the BSD license that means I am fully aware of that being a possibility. If limiting the ability for others to profit from my work was my goal I would choose another license (like the GPL) or maybe just keep it to myself. The point is not everyone has the same priorities...

There you are not getting any of that money, and they guy who only had the skill for his proprietary tweaks gets it all.


Who cares? You think most people starting BSD projects are in it for the money???

That doesn`t seem like any just division of means, or correct reward for ones work in any way.


If seems to me that thoughts concerning correct reward for ones work don't enter into it for most BSD folks - they aren't doing it for the payday.

Then again the BSD logo is a satan. I am sure all satans are proud to be abused.


One man's abuse is another man's reward... Not everyone is motivated by greed, for some people just having their work flourish is enough for them. Why hate on the unselfish?

Edited 2012-04-22 05:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: hm?
by tuma324 on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 18:43 in reply to "RE: hm?"
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

The BSD license is completely open source - it is pretty close the the epitome of the concept. The GPL, while having it's uses, is far less "open" if being open is your main goal. I'm not saying that the GPL is bad - but it is most definitely more constraining.


You mean *its* NOT *it's*.

And I disagree with your definition of the GPL.

The GPL ensures freedom for users and developers, meaning that the code will always remain free. BSD doesn't ensure anything of this.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: hm?
by Soulbender on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 04:47 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The GPL ensures freedom for users and developers, meaning that the code will always remain free. BSD doesn't ensure anything of this.


You really don't know how this works. Code released under either license will always remain "free". You can't take code relased under the BSD license and magically make it closed and the same goes for the GPL.
The difference is in what restrictions are placed on derivative work and re-distribution. The GPL places more restrictions on this than the BSD license and some people like this and some do not.

Reply Parent Score: 2