Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Jan 2013 01:41 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Thread beginning with comment 548313
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Developer's point of view
by lucas_maximus on Fri 11th Jan 2013 09:37
in reply to "RE: Developer's point of view"
RE[3]: Developer's point of view
by kwan_e on Fri 11th Jan 2013 10:59
in reply to "RE[2]: Developer's point of view"
Actually no it doesn't if the software is used internally by a company.
At my last job I maintained my own fork of (out-dated) GPL JavaScript and CMS libraries when used in an intranet setting. None of the bugs I have fixed were ever ported back.
At my last job I maintained my own fork of (out-dated) GPL JavaScript and CMS libraries when used in an intranet setting. None of the bugs I have fixed were ever ported back.
Which is a moot point because any modified "open source" programs that doesn't see the light of day may as well not factor into any calculation.
Comparing like with like - publicly redistributed binarie - GPL guarantees reciprocation.




Member since:
2007-02-18
.
.
.
I seriously don't see why anyone would ignore the obvious benefits of working with the BSD communities to improve their code.
Because the BSD licence can't guarantee the improvements will be passed back, whereas GPL obligates it (upon distribution). I'm not saying BSD don't pass back improvements, because they obviously do, but there's no guarantee.
It is a practical matter what licences to choose, and the guy who made the mailing list post did list licences as one of the major issues.