4 ms·
You can do the same with GPL2 (if you have a CLA, see MySQL (are you thinking of AGPL by any chance?)). The issue is that I don't see why would someone code fo
by greenhouse_gas 10y ago
You can do the same with GPL2 (if you have a CLA, see MySQL (are you thinking of AGPL by any chance?)).
The issue is that I don't see why would someone code for you for free, if you're going to sell the resultant code. For example, I don't think IBM would contribute to Linux if Linus was considered "the sole owner" and sold GPL exemptions.
- hackits 10y agoGPL2 - I give you my time and my work, you can sell it or include it in your product but credit the software package/module in your read-me.txt file and where to find it. By any chance you make modifications please make it available or publish them so it can be included back into the product. GPL3 - I give you my time and my work, you can sell it or include it in your product but you need to also release your product under GPL3 and make it available to the public (eg.. Copy left). The caveat of GPL3 is if the legal department doesn't like it, they can negotiate with the developer to purchase a GPL2 license, or proprietary license that comes with support. Mostly boils down if you want everyone to play nice.
- Nomentatus 10y agoYou've made a distinction without a difference. Both licenses are copyleft. You choose GPL in the first place 'cause it's a more toxic poison pill vs other businesses. That's its function for you. By this measure GPL 3 is indeed the better poison pill because it precludes tivoization as well as going for the old hardware-and-software patent grab, too.