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 515224
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: hm?
by silix on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 13:37 UTC in reply to "hm?"
silix
Member since:
2006-03-01

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?

no, because if i release some project under the BSD, that means that either:
- i don't care about monetary compensation (or my developing work has already been implicitly rewarded -see later), and/or
- i beg for my code to become a reference implementation ready for everyone else to reuse in both free and commercial sw products

reuse of (good) code is one thing a pragmatic developer always strives to do, since it minimizes duplicated (thus likely wasted) wheel reinvention efforts (thus entropy) and ideally results in a single (for a given function and design approach) more robust codebase, rather than separate ones each with its own idiosynchrasies and bugs

There you are not getting any of that money,

but the point is, if you educate yourself about the meaning of the BSD acronym, you'll understand the motive behind a permissive license...
the licensed item is software produced (or at least relicensed) by a university, i.e. a product of academic research, but with academic research everyone (both private and commercial parties) is entitled to exploit research products at will...
one may say that companies are even more so since afaik they're prime sponsors of privately funded universities - from a certain point of view, they got all the right to use bsd code since they've already paid for it (because academic researchers dont work for free, those developing original BSD/MIT code were paid for their work)

Edited 2012-04-22 13:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: hm?
by Kivada on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 20:48 in reply to "RE: hm?"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

The key word there is exploit, companies shouldn't be allowed to exploit ANY academic research, it's why health care is so expensive and ruled by the drug companies pushing the pill of the week.

They are allowed to take all the academic research they like, tweak it my 1 atom, patent it, sell it at incredibly high prices, when the patent is going to expire, re-tweak it and re-patent it and kill the old product line.

Reply Parent Score: 3