5 ms·

Do the places you work forbid the use of Linux or the GNU Coreutils? In what context are you using Rust Coreutils? Windows? MacOS? BSD?

coldtea 6y ago
>Do the places you work forbid the use of Linux or the GNU Coreutils? They allow them. I had cases where clients forbade some GPL code (banks, etc) - worse with GPL3.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  They'll stop doing that if most code is GPLv3. If most code is GPLv3, we're all better off – but while people are still prepared to work around GPL-rejecting companies, those companies can still reject the GPL. It's the tragedy of the Commons.
  - ben_bai 6y ago
    The GPL license usage is falling, and even Linux is GPLv2 and rejects GPLv3. Some Linux code is dual licenses GPLv2 and MIT. ApacheV2, MPL, MIT, ISC and BSD licenses are gaining in popularity.
  - Master_Odin 6y ago
    Alternatively, if more OSS was GPLv3, we might see companies more default to recreating the software in house and nobody really wins.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >They'll stop doing that if most code is GPLv3 No, they'll just find a MIT/BSD or probably proprietary alternative.
    - AlchemistCamp 6y ago
      From a legal perspective, what is the advantage in a proprietary alternative?
      - coldtea 6y ago
        E.g. they don't get to sue you for using it and not opening your own software that links to it, since you can buy a license allowing you to do just that. That's also why some GPL software is dual licensed. GPL for the masses, and a proprietary license allowing you to do whatever without needing to follow the GPL if you can afford it.
        AlchemistCamp 6y ago
        Ah! You mean a special kind of proprietary license for them. That makes sense. I thought you meant they would just use copyrighted code that wasn't under a GPL (which would be just as illegal and probably more dangerous in terms of enforcement).
- raegis 6y ago
  Do they forbid using the code, or incorporating the code into their own works? I hear of places forbidding the use of GPL code (even in-house) where they use proprietary software like Microsoft Word with no worries.
  - ben_bai 6y ago
    Because Microsoft doesn't demand you open source your plugins. GNU software might force you to. Corporations choosing to not use GPL software mostly don't know enough about it, to know it's ok. So they ban it outright.
    - teddyh 6y ago
      > GNU software might force you to. No, they might not. Just like Microsoft, they might demand that you don’t release your plugins. Addidionaly, GNU software gives you the alternative of releasing your plugins. But you don’t have to, and they can’t make you do it.

coldtea 6y ago

>Do the places you work forbid the use of Linux or the GNU Coreutils? They allow them. I had cases where clients forbade some GPL code (banks, etc) - worse with GPL3.

wizzwizz4 6y ago
They'll stop doing that if most code is GPLv3. If most code is GPLv3, we're all better off – but while people are still prepared to work around GPL-rejecting companies, those companies can still reject the GPL. It's the tragedy of the Commons.
- ben_bai 6y ago
  The GPL license usage is falling, and even Linux is GPLv2 and rejects GPLv3. Some Linux code is dual licenses GPLv2 and MIT. ApacheV2, MPL, MIT, ISC and BSD licenses are gaining in popularity.
- Master_Odin 6y ago
  Alternatively, if more OSS was GPLv3, we might see companies more default to recreating the software in house and nobody really wins.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >They'll stop doing that if most code is GPLv3 No, they'll just find a MIT/BSD or probably proprietary alternative.
  - AlchemistCamp 6y ago
    From a legal perspective, what is the advantage in a proprietary alternative?
    - coldtea 6y ago
      E.g. they don't get to sue you for using it and not opening your own software that links to it, since you can buy a license allowing you to do just that. That's also why some GPL software is dual licensed. GPL for the masses, and a proprietary license allowing you to do whatever without needing to follow the GPL if you can afford it.
      - AlchemistCamp 6y ago
        Ah! You mean a special kind of proprietary license for them. That makes sense. I thought you meant they would just use copyrighted code that wasn't under a GPL (which would be just as illegal and probably more dangerous in terms of enforcement).
raegis 6y ago
Do they forbid using the code, or incorporating the code into their own works? I hear of places forbidding the use of GPL code (even in-house) where they use proprietary software like Microsoft Word with no worries.
- ben_bai 6y ago
  Because Microsoft doesn't demand you open source your plugins. GNU software might force you to. Corporations choosing to not use GPL software mostly don't know enough about it, to know it's ok. So they ban it outright.
  - teddyh 6y ago
    > GNU software might force you to. No, they might not. Just like Microsoft, they might demand that you don’t release your plugins. Addidionaly, GNU software gives you the alternative of releasing your plugins. But you don’t have to, and they can’t make you do it.