3 ms·
> it never really caught on outside the GNU project Actually, I think GPLv3 did something even stranger, at least something I didn't expect. I've now seen nume
by bluejekyll 10y ago
> it never really caught on outside the GNU project
Actually, I think GPLv3 did something even stranger, at least something I didn't expect. I've now seen numerous entities use the GPLv3 as a mechanism to deny Companies access to that software unless they purchase a copy that is under a proprietary license. This is because some company legal departments see the GPLv3 as inherently dangerous to use. So the "Open Source" entity uses the GPLv3 to get in the door, and then offers a proprietary license that the code is sold under as an alternative to the GPLv3 for corporate use.
I'm still torn on if I like this model of dual-licensing or not. It definitely gives Open Source companies an ability to earn money from Corporations that want to keep their code closed.
- EdHominem 10y agoHow is that a GPLv3 issue? You think the companies would prefer v2? But anyways, how does that deny companies access any more than simply using a proprietary license in the first place? You're already denied access to 99.9% of code written because it isn't publicly licensed at all.
- bluejekyll 10y agoIts internal legal departments of large companies (and some medium sized ones). They tend to be most highly concerned with the patent provisions in GPLv3, and yes, GPLv2 is much more palatable, though I've often seen requirements that the code is not contributed to. The denial is not from the GPL it's from the corporate legal team. This is a big reason why the Apache 2.0 and MIT licenses are much more popular among tech companies with private codebases (in addition to the Open Source code that they release).