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 515241
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: hm?
by tuma324 on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE: hm?"
tuma324
Member since:
2010-04-09

The BSD license is completely open source - it is pretty close the the epitome of the concept. The GPL, while having it's uses, is far less "open" if being open is your main goal. I'm not saying that the GPL is bad - but it is most definitely more constraining.


You mean *its* NOT *it's*.

And I disagree with your definition of the GPL.

The GPL ensures freedom for users and developers, meaning that the code will always remain free. BSD doesn't ensure anything of this.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: hm?
by Soulbender on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 04:47 in reply to "RE[2]: hm?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The GPL ensures freedom for users and developers, meaning that the code will always remain free. BSD doesn't ensure anything of this.


You really don't know how this works. Code released under either license will always remain "free". You can't take code relased under the BSD license and magically make it closed and the same goes for the GPL.
The difference is in what restrictions are placed on derivative work and re-distribution. The GPL places more restrictions on this than the BSD license and some people like this and some do not.

Reply Parent Score: 2