7 ms·
Heh. The reasons given also explain why the GNU project has failed to release any influential software like GCC, the various GNU shell utilities, GNU Emacs, GD
by dasht 16y ago
Heh. The reasons given also explain why the GNU project has failed to release any influential software like GCC, the various GNU shell utilities, GNU Emacs, GDB and other such insignificant projects.
- lzw 16y agoNo denying the influence of GNU, but have you noticed that commercially tolerant licenses are becoming more popular and businesses are some of the biggest producers of new major open source projects?
- bconway 16y agoNone of the projects listed above are AGPL-licensed. AGPL is egregious in its viral nature.
- callahad 16y agoDepends on how you apply it. MongoDB uses an AGPL core, with Apache drivers. The end result? Your deployed modifications to MongoDB must be made available, but your application itself can stay closed. It's kind of like the LGPL, but for network services.
- baddox 16y agoIt's always seemed to me that with truly free software, you absolutely could compile into a binary and distribute it without the source code. I'm all for abolition of most if not all intellectual property protection, but the copyleft stuff always seemed to me just "we don't like certain restrictions on software, but we're perfectly fine with these restrictions on software."
- lnguyen 16y agoIt's about making sure that if you build upon the work that others have made openly available, that you contribute back. If you want to keep your code closed, then you're more than welcome to do that. Just honor the choice that others have made with their code.