5 ms·

The intent of making something open source is usually for others to use it. The parent is remarking that by choosing GPL the code would probably never be used.

The intent of making something open source is usually for others to use it. The parent is remarking that by choosing GPL the code would probably never be used. Which, in theory, would defeat the reason for making it open source in the first place. I'm assuming the idea behind making such a comment is the realization that many people, especially in academia, do not realize how unusable GPL is.

nemetroid 8y ago
> The intent of making something open source is usually for others to use it. The intent of releasing something under a MIT or BSD license, maybe.
- Illniyar 8y ago
  You can release the source code without any license. Adding a license means you want other people to "license" it from you - I.E. using your code. The GP actually quoted the article "and solves most of the problems that held that back from wider popularity." Which imply the author wanted people to adopt it. I'm assuming it wasn't about other academics adoptions but of hobbyists and commercial ventures.
jakobegger 8y ago
I think the "unusability" of the GPL is exactly what many people want when they release GPLed code. GPLed code can be used by other researchers (good for popularity), but you can't use it for proprietery software.So if Adobe wants to use this curve, they have to license it. If it actually works out, I don't know, but that's been the intention of some researchers that I asked why they used GPL.
patrec 8y ago
> The parent is remarking that by choosing GPL the code would probably never be used. Nonsense. Raph Levien's spiro spline code already is used in Inkscape and Fontforge, as you could easily have found out yourself. How exactly is releasing code under GPL going to to prevent its adoption in widely used GPL'ed software? And if the approach is any good, why would a commercial software vendor not be convinced by the GPL'ed prototype to reach out to Raph to find a licensing deal or commission work from him rather than doing it themselves? > people [...] do not realize how unusable GPL is. The GPL is so unusable that almost every computer or device you touch is full of GPL'ed software.

nemetroid 8y ago

> The intent of making something open source is usually for others to use it. The intent of releasing something under a MIT or BSD license, maybe.

Illniyar 8y ago
You can release the source code without any license. Adding a license means you want other people to "license" it from you - I.E. using your code. The GP actually quoted the article "and solves most of the problems that held that back from wider popularity." Which imply the author wanted people to adopt it. I'm assuming it wasn't about other academics adoptions but of hobbyists and commercial ventures.

jakobegger 8y ago

I think the "unusability" of the GPL is exactly what many people want when they release GPLed code. GPLed code can be used by other researchers (good for popularity), but you can't use it for proprietery software.So if Adobe wants to use this curve, they have to license it. If it actually works out, I don't know, but that's been the intention of some researchers that I asked why they used GPL.

patrec 8y ago

> The parent is remarking that by choosing GPL the code would probably never be used. Nonsense. Raph Levien's spiro spline code already is used in Inkscape and Fontforge, as you could easily have found out yourself. How exactly is releasing code under GPL going to to prevent its adoption in widely used GPL'ed software? And if the approach is any good, why would a commercial software vendor not be convinced by the GPL'ed prototype to reach out to Raph to find a licensing deal or commission work from him rather than doing it themselves? > people [...] do not realize how unusable GPL is. The GPL is so unusable that almost every computer or device you touch is full of GPL'ed software.