4 ms·

Very much this. If you make an open source library, and you don't intend to ever charge for it, then at least allow people to use it in their products, free or

Very much this. If you make an open source library, and you don't intend to ever charge for it, then at least allow people to use it in their products, free or commercial, without having to open source the entire thing.

icebraining 10y ago
at least At least? So the person already selflessly donated an open source library to the world, even if only usable if you comply with certain terms, and that's not enough? I frankly don't get this perspective at all.
Symbiote 10y ago
Why? Why not only let other people use it in their products, if they make their code available on the same basis as I released mine?
- charlesdm 10y ago
  Well, guess we can have different opinions on this, but I would want the open source code I write to actually be used in cool (commercial and non-commercial) stuff. If you're pushing GPL, that is just not going to happen (often). Code in itself isn't useful. You're not improving the world by writing code. You're improving the world with the impact that code can have and the value it can deliver.
  - pmontra 10y ago
    Maybe people using GPL only want their code to be used in other GPL projects and they want to improve the world in that way. For example I want people to reciprocate: if I give you some code, give back some code too. But don't forget the LGPL, which lets GPL code to be used even inside proprietary one.
  - adrianN 10y ago
    For some people, user freedom is a large chunk of the value.
  - Thrillington 10y ago
    Extracting value through code is not an inherently positive moral exercise. It may improve the world. From my perspective code that is built to extract value eventually attempts vendor lockin to create a long term revenue stream.
erikbye 10y ago
If there is one thing I am certain of, when it comes to software and licenses, as for new software (not using licensed code), let the copyright holder release on his terms. That means he's the party that gets to choose the license. He should have no other obligations. That is one freedom I support.

icebraining 10y ago

at least At least? So the person already selflessly donated an open source library to the world, even if only usable if you comply with certain terms, and that's not enough? I frankly don't get this perspective at all.

Symbiote 10y ago

Why? Why not only let other people use it in their products, if they make their code available on the same basis as I released mine?

charlesdm 10y ago
Well, guess we can have different opinions on this, but I would want the open source code I write to actually be used in cool (commercial and non-commercial) stuff. If you're pushing GPL, that is just not going to happen (often). Code in itself isn't useful. You're not improving the world by writing code. You're improving the world with the impact that code can have and the value it can deliver.
- pmontra 10y ago
  Maybe people using GPL only want their code to be used in other GPL projects and they want to improve the world in that way. For example I want people to reciprocate: if I give you some code, give back some code too. But don't forget the LGPL, which lets GPL code to be used even inside proprietary one.
- adrianN 10y ago
  For some people, user freedom is a large chunk of the value.
- Thrillington 10y ago
  Extracting value through code is not an inherently positive moral exercise. It may improve the world. From my perspective code that is built to extract value eventually attempts vendor lockin to create a long term revenue stream.

erikbye 10y ago

If there is one thing I am certain of, when it comes to software and licenses, as for new software (not using licensed code), let the copyright holder release on his terms. That means he's the party that gets to choose the license. He should have no other obligations. That is one freedom I support.