3 ms·

Yes, but the (enterprisey) fear to contribute on a(n) (A)GPL licensed repo still stands, looking at how many PRs have MIT/Apache licensed projects makes you fee

by worg 11y ago

Yes, but the (enterprisey) fear to contribute on a(n) (A)GPL licensed repo still stands, looking at how many PRs have MIT/Apache licensed projects makes you feel that the less open licenses aren't as bad as Stallman says, because they encourage enterprise users (and developers that are being paid for it) to contribute back to those projects anyway

pksadiq 11y ago
> MIT/Apache licensed projects makes you feel that the less open licenses aren't as bad as Stallman says.. This is a slow process. We won't agree the problems with MIT/Apache until something really bad happens. Say for example, we all use routers for internet. Mostly it contains GPLv2 linux and busybox + binary blobs. Most of us don't care. But if someday someone finds backdoors in those, we won't be able to change its firmware with our own/with the one's we trust. this bug was fixed with [A]GPLv3. If we don't act now, we shall have to regret later. But most of us won't act. Though we know that some fast foods might aid cancer, we won't stop it until we or someone in close relation with us have cancer. That's a human nature.
- worg 11y ago
  The GPL has its use cases, for an OS/Embedded software I think it's the best choice because they could be 'stolen' easily, but for libraries/frameworks maybe not, again a lot of companies are afraid of GPL licensed software (that's wrong but it's difficult to explain as the article says) so the choice is to have a (morally right) GPL licensed piece of code that nobody uses because of fear or a less open licensed one that is used, tested and have contributors
  - mchahn 11y ago
    > The GPL has its use cases, for an OS/Embedded software I think it's the best choice because they could be 'stolen' easily I'm not sure I understand. If you care about stealing, why would you open-source it? I thought the purpose of the GPL was to force others to join the movement, not to reduce stealing. (I know the word 'stealing' was in quotes, but I guess I don't understand the usage).
    - worg 11y ago
      I meant taking the code without contributing back

by worg 11y ago

pksadiq 11y ago

> MIT/Apache licensed projects makes you feel that the less open licenses aren't as bad as Stallman says.. This is a slow process. We won't agree the problems with MIT/Apache until something really bad happens. Say for example, we all use routers for internet. Mostly it contains GPLv2 linux and busybox + binary blobs. Most of us don't care. But if someday someone finds backdoors in those, we won't be able to change its firmware with our own/with the one's we trust. this bug was fixed with [A]GPLv3. If we don't act now, we shall have to regret later. But most of us won't act. Though we know that some fast foods might aid cancer, we won't stop it until we or someone in close relation with us have cancer. That's a human nature.

worg 11y ago
The GPL has its use cases, for an OS/Embedded software I think it's the best choice because they could be 'stolen' easily, but for libraries/frameworks maybe not, again a lot of companies are afraid of GPL licensed software (that's wrong but it's difficult to explain as the article says) so the choice is to have a (morally right) GPL licensed piece of code that nobody uses because of fear or a less open licensed one that is used, tested and have contributors
- mchahn 11y ago
  > The GPL has its use cases, for an OS/Embedded software I think it's the best choice because they could be 'stolen' easily I'm not sure I understand. If you care about stealing, why would you open-source it? I thought the purpose of the GPL was to force others to join the movement, not to reduce stealing. (I know the word 'stealing' was in quotes, but I guess I don't understand the usage).
  - worg 11y ago
    I meant taking the code without contributing back