4 ms·
IMO it makes more sense to look at the rising popularity of a license like MIT, as opposed to the GPL, in terms of the acceptability of each license to differen
by theobeers 6y ago
IMO it makes more sense to look at the rising popularity of a license like MIT, as opposed to the GPL, in terms of the acceptability of each license to different groups of individuals and institutions.
What is the range of opinion regarding the MIT license? From what I’ve seen, people are either fine with it, or mildly disgruntled. Exceptions are rare. And of course, corporations love having access to software libraries under this license.
How about the GPL? Individual developers seem to be either ok with it, or enthusiastically in support. That’s cool—I’m sure we can all relate to those feelings. But a lot of, ahem, for-profit institutions simply will not get involved in GPL-licensed software. We’ve seen repeatedly the effects of their willingness to walk away, to invest in alternatives, etc.
It seems obvious, if depressing, how things will move over time.
- zelphirkalt 6y agoBut then again it is also obvious that greedy people will have more emotions involved when it comes to something that forces them to contribute back, so no surprise there. I think this is painting the picture in a too one-sided way. Here is another way to see it: While for-profits might develop their own alternatives, they will fail to make those GPL licensed in most cases, because that is what they wanted to avoid: Giving back to the society, that allows them to exist. So they will have proprietary code. The next company will do the same and so on, all while slowly the GPL licensed alternative creeps up on them, until finally it has caught up. It gets ever more expensive to not use GPL software, as free software slowly gains ground.
- indymike 6y agoPlenty of for-profits use, support and contribute to GPL'd software. I suspect that those who will not are a smaller set than companies who prefer not to.