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 515211
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: hm?
by kwan_e on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hm?"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

"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.


The same thing happens to any BSD code that is forked and GPLd, any modifications to the fork are under the GPL and can't be backported to the original BSD code.

I would say that was selfish as well, using the your same logic.
"

As a person who tends towards GPL for pragmatic purposes, I say your scenario does illustrate selfishness. There is no denying it. It's taking advantage of an unequal situation.

But that is the risk you run of licensing your code using BSD. If you don't like it, license your code under some other license. That's why people like me would choose the GPL. I don't like being taken advantage of, even though I like having opened code.

Altruism only works if it is reciprocated.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: hm?
by lucas_maximus on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 13:09 in reply to "RE[5]: hm?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

However what Lemur2 alluded to that he still thinks that if someone repackages it and makes money even though the original author released the code knowing full well that may happen.

I just reflected the situation back at him saying that forked code can have the same fate.

Reply Parent Score: 2