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 515173
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: hm?
by galvanash on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 05:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hm?"
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

I'm pretty sure giving something away, with no strings attached, could be considered a definition of selfless.


I'm pretty sure that taking something, giving nothing back for it, yet still charging downstream recipients for essentially that same thing re-packaged, could be considered the definition of selfish.


That's it, in a nutshell, right there... The BSD license is for the unselfish. The GPL license is for forcing other people to be unselfish.

I have nothing against the GPL, I'm just saying maybe all the loudmouth GPL proponents that talk about how it is "better" should consider that some people simply don't feel the need to police other people's behavior - they just want to write code and share it with whoever is interested...

Edited 2012-04-22 05:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 11:59 in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

That's it, in a nutshell, right there... The BSD license is for the unselfish. The GPL license is for forcing other people to be unselfish.


That is stupid. GPL doesn't force people to be unselfish because the only people affected by GPL are those who use GPL code. The GPL license doesn't claim ownership of open source code by default.

If you like being selfish, choose BSD, or pay for off-the-shelf middleware, where you don't have to reciprocate the sharing. The GPL is for those who want to share their code but with protection from people/companies who just leech from their efforts.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[6]: hm?
by galvanash on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 18:36 in reply to "RE[5]: hm?"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

That is stupid. GPL doesn't force people to be unselfish because the only people affected by GPL are those who use GPL code. The GPL license doesn't claim ownership of open source code by default.


No, it isn't stupid - at all. You just don't like the way it sounds even though it is completely true.

If you choose to use the GPL license you are forcing a specific behavior in those who use your code. That is in fact the entire point... I never said you were forcing ALL people, obviously it only applies to those who want to use your code.

But in order to use GPL code a user has no choice - act unselfishly (as the license dictates) or go away.

I'm sure your next argument is that the user chooses to use the code, therefore they are not forced. That is completely true. It is also true, however, that the author chooses the license, and that this choice is what ultimately forces the user to have to make their choice in the first place....

Hence the BSD license is for unselfish people. The GPL license is for forcing other people to be unselfish.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: hm?
by Beta on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 07:34 in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

The BSD license is for the unselfish.

Not solely, selfless contributors, and either or users.

The GPL license is for forcing other people to be unselfish.

The GPL doesn’t force anyone to be selfless if they wish to be selfish ‐ you have the ability to choose to use code under it or not.

Reply Parent Score: 3