3 ms·
Thinking like yours gave us GPLv3 and less subsequent adoption of copyleft licenses. Which means you’ve got a lovely and ideologically pure hill to die on, but
by abritinthebay 9y ago
Thinking like yours gave us GPLv3 and less subsequent adoption of copyleft licenses.
Which means you’ve got a lovely and ideologically pure hill to die on, but die you will.
In the real world code is useless without being adopted. The largest adopters? Businesses. They don’t want to use GPLv3? Less developers likely to use it (market forces I’m afraid).
So no, I’ll keep paying attention to what works and not be beholden to the idealistic notions of the FSF, thanks.
- flukus 9y agoWhat business stay away from GPL3 that were OK with GPL2? The only one I can think of is apple and they're the type of free loaders that don't benefit the wider OSS community anyway. Most companies are still using linux with gnu tools so the version 3 hasn't affected them at all.
- alacombe 9y agoBack in 2008, a large "feature-phone" chip maker I used to work for decided the GPLv3 was a total no-go while the GPLv2 was kinda reluctantly accepted.
- _ph_ 9y agoLinux is still GPL2 and some companies decided to stay with the GPL2-licensed versions of those GNU tools.
- maccard 9y ago> is apple and they're the type of free loaders that don't benefit the wider OSS community anyway. Forgetting about a little project called clang? Swift is open source, WebKit is open source (with a tarnished history). I’m not claiming Apple are perfect, but saying they’re free loaders who don’t benefit is a flat out lie.
- abritinthebay 9y agoLong story short? Lots.