3 ms·
I think the distinction between "download and run" software vs. "libraries used to build new programs" should always be stated in this GPL vs. not discussion.
by zzzeek 7y ago
I think the distinction between "download and run" software vs. "libraries used to build new programs" should always be stated in this GPL vs. not discussion.
For "download and run" software, having it be GPL IMO doesn't limit too much who will ultimately be using your software. But if you are writing a programming library that would be used to create new software, GPL and even the LGPL will scare away a lot of commercial users, as well as projects that themselves hope to attract commercial users. If you don't care about commerical users, then it doesn't matter. But I think most people that write programming libraries care a lot about this.
- megous 7y agoFor me it's rather simple. I like GNU/Linux, the whole free/sharing ecosystem helped me learn so much, it allowed me great productivity, to modify anything and everything, etc. I like others to have the same opportunity, so GPL it is, even for libraries.
- zzzeek 7y agoWell it doesn't always work that way. I have a bunch of MIT licensed libraries that are very widely used and I'm 100% certain there are no commercial forks of it of any particular value. Because then they'd not have my support when their stuff breaks. Im sure there's lots of other libraries like mine, the MIT license is not limiting anyone's access to the best versions of my code.
- megous 7y agoYour argument doesn't say anything about GPL not always working that way. It just says that MIT license may work that way too, if noone else will make any useful closed modifications. Which is actually an uninteresting case.