3 ms·
Yes, the GPL is an Open Source license. However Free Software is a specific kind of Open Source and it adds a number of restrictions not found in a typical Open
by bruce511 6y ago
Yes, the GPL is an Open Source license. However Free Software is a specific kind of Open Source and it adds a number of restrictions not found in a typical Open Source license (BSD, MIT, Apache etc.)
To reference the original point, Business may be allergic to the GPL, but at the same love the wider set of Open Source licenses.
Free Software, and Open Source very much do not mean the same thing. Free Software is a subset of open source with an addional layer of very restrictive clauses. It is that extra layer that prevents GPL code being used by most business.
While the difference is based in philosophy, yes, that philisophical difference has a huge impact in how code is used in the real world.
- zvr 6y agoYou seem to think that software under "a typical Open Source license (BSD, MIT, Apache etc.)" is not Free Software. Free Software Foundation disagrees with this view: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
- bruce511 6y agoI stand corrected. Perhaps my point (or my understanding) then is more subtle. Perhaps what I mean to say is that the GPL license comes with additional virility, not found in BSD et al. Perhaps the difference is most noticeable in libraries (where I do most of my work). Using a GPL library in a commercial app is generally impossible, where BSD (or LGPL) etc is completely acceptable. In my experience companies are allergic to GPL specifically, whereas other licenses - especially MIT and BSD are far more palatable, and are frequently used.
- TACIXAT 6y agoThat is really my point. They will use and celebrate your code if they can use it to make money and give nothing back. If you place some restriction on it that forces openness then it becomes toxic waste to them. It is a one way street.