3 ms·
There was a time when it seemed inconceivable that developers would be motivated to release code under MIT or BSD style licenses that lacked the "viral" distrib
by nihonde 9y ago
There was a time when it seemed inconceivable that developers would be motivated to release code under MIT or BSD style licenses that lacked the "viral" distribution obligations of the GPL. Back then, it seemed obvious that a healthy open source community was going to need to force "borrowers" of the code to contribute their improvements in order to avoid freeloading. However, the reality is that plenty of healthy open source communities exist on MIT style licenses and even include corporate community members who are willing to subsidize improvements that get merged into the public editions. In this way, the "failure" of GPL is a story about people behaving well as a community without needing to have legal whips cracked at them
- douche 9y agoDamn near everything on npm is MIT licensed. Generally, that's cited as a thriving open-source community. I don't know that that Cambrian explosion happens if people have to deal with the cognitive and legal costs of fussing with the GPL.
- watwut 9y agoLicenses are legal and public relations whips cracked at people. They would not work otherwise.