5 ms·
The opposite approach isn't proven either. In other words, there is no data on the issue. So you too are, in essence, making a decision based on faith. Although
by boucher 17y ago
The opposite approach isn't proven either. In other words, there is no data on the issue. So you too are, in essence, making a decision based on faith. Although I can't find a recent source, it has historically been the case, and probably still is, that the GPL is the most popular open source license.
Not everyone who uses the GPL or advocates in favor of the GPL believes it should be the only license. I suspect hardly anyone does. Unfortunately people let their opinions of RMS cloud this debate.
The argument that the GPL prevents people from turning a profit is not a sound one. Any business model available under a non GPL license is available under a GPL license as well. Additionally, the dual license model becomes a viable option when using the GPL.
- tensor 17y agoI am not making any claims, however. I am not claiming the opposite approach (closed source?) is the best. I am simply ensuring that most software I write is available for everyone, period. It could be used in a GPL project, a closed source project, or a BSD project. I am not even advocating a license position. My only goal is to help society by lessoning the work required by others, since they can freely use my code. A license like the MIT license maximizes that goal as far as I can see. I am content with admitting that I do not know the "best" model. And I am not opposed to releasing work under other licenses at other times. I have even released under the GPL in the past, but for political reasons. If you think I am a license warrior, you are incorrect.