3 ms·
Just because you don't like a licenses obligations does not make the license cancerous. People that call it cancerous are doing that only because they want to
by pitay 10y ago
Just because you don't like a licenses obligations does not make the license cancerous.
People that call it cancerous are doing that only because they want to get peoples work and do not want to give back any work they do on the GPL'd software or the software that uses the GPL'd code.
The agency I used to work at didn't mind using GPL'd software at all, because with one or two exceptions the agency did not distribute software at all. The AGPL was different matter though, so we just didn't use software licensed under AGPL. I am not complaining that software uses the AGPL license, it's all the better for software developers to license it the way they want, there's no point in whining about it.
I would tend to license software under the GPL just so that any improvements made to it go back to the community.
- x1798DE 10y ago> Just because you don't like a licenses obligations does not make the license cancerous. Considering that I often hear GPL (and other copyleft licenses) described by its proponents as a virus, I don't think the disease metaphor is out of the question. The whole idea is that to maintain license compatibility in derivative works you need to propagate the license. I don't feel strongly about copyleft, though I generally don't use it for my own works.