3 ms·

You were pretty specific that it was entirely the fault of the GPL: > I'd have to explain to my commercial clients that there's another $50-100k upcharge due t

You were pretty specific that it was entirely the fault of the GPL: > I'd have to explain to my commercial clients that there's another $50-100k upcharge due to the architecture change and licensing costs due to GPL restrictions.

epistasis 6y ago
What point are you trying to make here? The poster has been very clear on the mechanics, which are quite understandable, but I don't understand what you are trying to say. Is it just that you think it does not put the GPL in a positive enough light? I don't mean to put words in your mouth but that's my current best guess
chipotle_coyote 6y ago
It seems clear enough from context that the "GPL restrictions" are that if they used the GPL-licensed compiler, the commercial clients might run into legal issues with their use of it, necessitating that they purchase the commercial license. It's not uncommon for businesses to have a prohibition against using GPL software in not only their shipping products but anywhere in their toolchain. (You can argue that's a counterproductive prohibition, but "your legal department just needs to change their mind on this" may not be an argument a vendor can effectively make.)
- foolmeonce 6y ago
  I would not make an argument even if I thought a client would accept it. If they are incompetent they will decide to use the GPL code with sloppy oversight, violate the terms of the GPL, then they will hold a little grudge against you for the advice that got them in trouble. Sloppy companies have no internal accountability, so it's your fault. I use GPL code all the time at home and I would license many things GPL, but there's no reason to push GPL software at corporations. They should have limited options and spend money, possibly expanding MIT code, possibly just raising the price of engineers by keeping engineers occupied.
adrianmonk 6y ago
Apple forced them into a situation that gives them fewer options. That isn't a statement about how good or bad each option is. It's a statement about the consequences that Apple's choices have for developers. If I'm a travel agent and an affordable hotel near a travel destination closes down, I might have to book my clients in a nicer but more expensive hotel. Their trip will be a bit more expensive. Or maybe they'll travel to a different city. It doesn't mean I dislike the nicer hotel.
ajford 6y ago
No, he was pretty clear that it was due to needing to use that solver due to it being the only one that works on ARM right now. The dual licensing was only relevant in that the client would have to pay for the commercial license (due to the GPL restrictions). > MKL has faster routines and is completely free, but it won't work on ARM

epistasis 6y ago

What point are you trying to make here? The poster has been very clear on the mechanics, which are quite understandable, but I don't understand what you are trying to say. Is it just that you think it does not put the GPL in a positive enough light? I don't mean to put words in your mouth but that's my current best guess

chipotle_coyote 6y ago

It seems clear enough from context that the "GPL restrictions" are that if they used the GPL-licensed compiler, the commercial clients might run into legal issues with their use of it, necessitating that they purchase the commercial license. It's not uncommon for businesses to have a prohibition against using GPL software in not only their shipping products but anywhere in their toolchain. (You can argue that's a counterproductive prohibition, but "your legal department just needs to change their mind on this" may not be an argument a vendor can effectively make.)

foolmeonce 6y ago
I would not make an argument even if I thought a client would accept it. If they are incompetent they will decide to use the GPL code with sloppy oversight, violate the terms of the GPL, then they will hold a little grudge against you for the advice that got them in trouble. Sloppy companies have no internal accountability, so it's your fault. I use GPL code all the time at home and I would license many things GPL, but there's no reason to push GPL software at corporations. They should have limited options and spend money, possibly expanding MIT code, possibly just raising the price of engineers by keeping engineers occupied.

adrianmonk 6y ago

Apple forced them into a situation that gives them fewer options. That isn't a statement about how good or bad each option is. It's a statement about the consequences that Apple's choices have for developers. If I'm a travel agent and an affordable hotel near a travel destination closes down, I might have to book my clients in a nicer but more expensive hotel. Their trip will be a bit more expensive. Or maybe they'll travel to a different city. It doesn't mean I dislike the nicer hotel.

ajford 6y ago

No, he was pretty clear that it was due to needing to use that solver due to it being the only one that works on ARM right now. The dual licensing was only relevant in that the client would have to pay for the commercial license (due to the GPL restrictions). > MKL has faster routines and is completely free, but it won't work on ARM