3 ms·
Thank you, that's probably the best explanation I've seen of the distinction. Still, it's an uphill battle to fight with bosses that don't understand the licen
by megaman22 8y ago
Thank you, that's probably the best explanation I've seen of the distinction.
Still, it's an uphill battle to fight with bosses that don't understand the licensing, and are gunshy of liability.
- belorn 8y agoIt depend on the industry and how competitive it is. It is relative known that the game industry is rather saturated and delaying a launch for a few months can be extremely costly, so its a rather costly mistake to re-implement a parsing library when there is a free alternative that is compatible with the business model. If its not compatible, it is still cheaper on the average to have a lawyer/developer send a email asking the project authors for an exception. For PC games its not uncommon to see third-party license text that is larger than the credits, occasionally put after the credits or in a file in the install directory. Not all industries are like that, and places like Google and Apple can afford to put years of developer time on re-implementing stuff for which they don't even know the outcome of. If you are dominant enough then delaying a product by months or years is not a big deal, and as seems common, companies like that has a reputation for throwing money and employees at the problem. I would guess that it is easier, quicker and "cheaper" for a Google project leader to get more people on a team rather than get a custom software license through the approval process.