4 ms·

Because people these days want to use open source codes freely, without bothering with License. And people who open projects wants their project more widely use

by kbumsik 10y ago

Because people these days want to use open source codes freely, without bothering with License. And people who open projects wants their project more widely used. GPL is too restrictive for new projects.

cr0sh 10y ago
All the GPL says, at it's basic core, is that if you incorporate the source code of the software into your source code, you must provide a means for others to get a copy of that extended source code, and they must adhere by the GPL license as well. In other words, if you GPL license your code, and someone else uses it, they need to "pass it on" - in other words, their payment to you (and the community) for using your code is for their changes to be passed back to you (and the community). Code paid for with more code - imagine that. The only restriction is against those who seek to profit (almost) exclusively off the source code, in perpetuity. They want their cake, and to eat as well. The MIT and other similar licenses allow this - they get to take the code, extend it, profit off of it, and never give back the changes that made the system better (and arguably forked it). And if you're lucky, you get mentioned down at the bottom of a copyright/license agreement in 4pt font that's barely readable.
- stephenr 10y ago
  If you 'incorporate' a piece of GPL code into your program, you're either dynamically or statically linking to it - which the FSF considers to be make your work 'derivative' and thus you would be required to license your own work under the GPL, regardless of whether you had made any changes to the original GPL code you make use of or not.
  - cr0sh 10y ago
    Of course - that's a feature of the GPL - not a bug.
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      "It only works if everybody does it" is not a feature or a bug, but a recipe for irrelevance at best and coercion at worst.
      - cr0sh 10y ago
        I think that's why they made the LGPL - though I am unclear on whether that particular version of the license applies to only dynamic linking, or both dynamic and static linking (?).

by kbumsik 10y ago

cr0sh 10y ago

All the GPL says, at it's basic core, is that if you incorporate the source code of the software into your source code, you must provide a means for others to get a copy of that extended source code, and they must adhere by the GPL license as well. In other words, if you GPL license your code, and someone else uses it, they need to "pass it on" - in other words, their payment to you (and the community) for using your code is for their changes to be passed back to you (and the community). Code paid for with more code - imagine that. The only restriction is against those who seek to profit (almost) exclusively off the source code, in perpetuity. They want their cake, and to eat as well. The MIT and other similar licenses allow this - they get to take the code, extend it, profit off of it, and never give back the changes that made the system better (and arguably forked it). And if you're lucky, you get mentioned down at the bottom of a copyright/license agreement in 4pt font that's barely readable.

stephenr 10y ago
If you 'incorporate' a piece of GPL code into your program, you're either dynamically or statically linking to it - which the FSF considers to be make your work 'derivative' and thus you would be required to license your own work under the GPL, regardless of whether you had made any changes to the original GPL code you make use of or not.
- cr0sh 10y ago
  Of course - that's a feature of the GPL - not a bug.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    "It only works if everybody does it" is not a feature or a bug, but a recipe for irrelevance at best and coercion at worst.
    - cr0sh 10y ago
      I think that's why they made the LGPL - though I am unclear on whether that particular version of the license applies to only dynamic linking, or both dynamic and static linking (?).