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 515208
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:08 UTC 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[9]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 13:36 in reply to "RE[8]: hm?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

** sigh **

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


And yet, the article is. So why can't I bring this back to being about GPL and BSD and how your rhetorical question relates to it?

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


Yes, and I gave an answer and reasons for that answer. Is that not allowed?

But no ... instead we just have vitriol.


Please point out anything I have said that was "vitriol". I was not aware that giving a definite answer is now "vitriol".

Reply Parent Score: 1