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 515204
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: hm?
by lucas_maximus on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hm?"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Sorry I think you missed my point.

Lemur2 was saying that if you give something away and someone never gives anything back that they are selfish.

My counter argument is "Should you be allowed to stipulate this?"

I was merely commenting on the fact that he thinks because he has given something away, he feels he is owed something back.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:08 in reply to "RE[6]: hm?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Lemur2 was saying that if you give something away and someone never gives anything back that they are selfish.

My counter argument is "Should you be allowed to stipulate this?"


Should you NOT be allowed to stipulate this? No one said open source was about "giving something away". GPL is not a charity. Never intended as such. If people open their code, why can't they stipulate the conditions that the code can be used? If people choose not to stipulate, they can. If people choose to stipulate, they can also.

Put the shoe on the other foot: what gives people the right to demand that people give away their code without conditions? Why should I, for example, be forced to open up my code with BSD licensing? Why can't I choose to open up my code with GPL? v3 even.

So yes, you should be allowed to stipulate the conditions your code should be used. People just have to suck up their sense of entitlement.*

* And no, GPL isn't a "sense of entitlement", because GPL doesn't require reciprocation from projects that don't use GPLed code.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: hm?
by lucas_maximus on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 13:06 in reply to "RE[7]: hm?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

** sigh **

I was not talking about GPL or BSD at all. FFS.

I am not saying either stance is right or wrong.

I merely said it as something to think about, that is why I put the question mark at the end of the post.

But no ... instead we just have vitriol.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: hm?
by Neolander on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:34 in reply to "RE[6]: hm?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I agree with that. I was just pointing out that releasing code under the GPL was not giving it away, but rather providing it for an unusual price.

For people who truly want to give code away in a charity-like fashion, there is stuff like the Creative Commons CC0 license, which nicely deals with the problem of public domain licensing in countries where the notion doesn't exist.

Edited 2012-04-22 12:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: hm?
by bassbeast on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 09:57 in reply to "RE[7]: hm?"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Then PLEASE just stop calling it free, alright? while RMS may be a big fan of newspeak (even going so far as to refuse interviews unless you speak HIS language HIS way) using newspeak to try to change reality is just wrong and any geek should be able to see that.

Let me put it THIS way: If I say to you "I will give you a "free" ride today but you MUST give ME a ride tomorrow" is that FREE? No it is not. For thousand of years free has had a clear and precise definition, free is just that, free of cost, restrictions, it is just that, free.

What the GPL is is a SHARING license, why is that word so shocking and offense? Sharing is a nice word, and is also quite clear and precise, I share with you and in return you share with me, see how that works?

So lets just be honest, okay? BSD is a free license, GPL is a sharing license, MSFT uses a restricted license. See how easy and clear that is? How even those that aren't a part of FOSS would have ZERO trouble getting the gist? So lets just leave the newspeak head games for RMS and the crazy that compared the BSD Daemon to satanism and let us geeks just speak honestly, how about that?

Reply Parent Score: 1