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 515336
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
GPL has advantages
by siki_miki on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 07:06 UTC
Member since:

GPL is better (for some projects of course) as it keeps the source open, not allowing companies like Apple,MS to take it in house and use to their advantage (while making it closed).
Good example is KHTML-baed Webkit, Apple had to give out the source code and therefore every mobile device today (except WP7 based) has a Webkit browser, while on the desktop it's holding a strong position through Chrome browser. If KHTML was more permissivly licensed, it would never see the light of the day outside Cupertino.

Another one - Linux kernel. We'd have dozens of closed proprietary varants, including Android kernel. GPL forces people to make their code available and thus it can be integrated (depends on manpower of course).

Related problem is companies are especially afraid of GPLv3, e.g. Apple moved away from Samba due to this.

Of course, the license has to be appropriate for a type of software. A library won't see much use in non-GPL software software if it's licensed as vanilla GPL (without linking exception).

Reply Score: 3