4 ms·
I can explain in one word: Greed. They want to have the option to, when they see a market opportunity, slap a logo and one tiny feature on top, and a price tag
by gcblkjaidfj 6y ago
I can explain in one word: Greed.
They want to have the option to, when they see a market opportunity, slap a logo and one tiny feature on top, and a price tag!
If there was a single, one, any tiny reason to not use GPL, nobody would be using linux.
Not using GPLv3 is sabotaging open source. People who stand with corporations and dislike GPLv3, are the same people that stood with microsoft in the 90s and disliked GPLv2. There's no way to please that people. Let them go. You do not need them.
- pjmlp 6y agoI am mostly a commercial software user, but I owe the GPL the possibility of having had access to UNIX at home. As such everything I do outside work, is dual licensed, don't want to pay me? GPL Want to earn money with my work? Lets talk about a commercial license that makes sense to both parties. I was there in the shareware/public domain days, and this is where everything is going back to with these decisions of moving away from the GPL. The major uptake of BSD UNIX clones across the industry shows how it would have worked out without Linux and GNU being GPL, basically HP-UX, Solaris, Aix, Irix would still dominate the server room.
- gcblkjaidfj 6y agoEveryone who tries to predict alternative universes will get it wrong. You say that because there was BSD, apple could have OSX and not license Solaris or what not. I say that without BSD licenses, Apple would have OSX with proper open source and up to date releases. Heck they did that with the kernel and most of the distro for a while.
- pjmlp 6y ago> ...HP-UX, Solaris, Aix, Irix would still dominate the server room. No word about Apple, where did you got it from?