3 ms·
Way to quote selectively there. "It sometimes sucks" occurs more frequently for many people than many would like to admit. I work for a company that uses a ton
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
Way to quote selectively there. "It sometimes sucks" occurs more frequently for many people than many would like to admit. I work for a company that uses a ton of open source and open sources a ton of its own technology. Even for us, the GPL is poison. We're not allowed to touch GPL code. And we're not alone in this sentiment. A large number of open source enthusiasts decry the viral nature of the GPL, precisely because it has unpleasant properties common with cancer.
- belorn 11y agoIf GPL is cancer for a company, then what then is proprietary licenses? nuclear bombs? Toxic waste? Ticking time bombs? I don't think such language is nice. It is damaging to civil conversation and can only alienate people more. No one likes hearing that what they create is like toxic waste.
- throwawaykf05 11y agoHow are proprietary licenses any better or worse than the GPL? It totally depends on what the terms of the license demand. Note that it is not the code that these people produce that is toxic, it is what they demand in return (via the terms of the license) that is. The language may not be nice, but it is descriptive of the situation the GPL puts many people into. The GPL essentially seeks to impose the ideology adopted by a subset of folks onto the rest of the world. "We believe code should be free, so if you want to use our stuff, your code must be free too, regardless of what you believe or what your business needs are or what is practical." That is not a very nice stance to have, and so many people do not say nice things about it. Think of it like someone saying, "Here, I'll do you a favor, but you must change your religion". Having different ideologies is perfectly fine, but enforcing them on others is not.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]