2 ms·
> Of course it is possible, that there would have been more adopters and more people sharing code back, but that is not guaranteed, which is kind of the point o
by zamalek 5y ago
> Of course it is possible, that there would have been more adopters and more people sharing code back, but that is not guaranteed, which is kind of the point of GPL.
BSD/MIT/permissive and our use of them did make it a hell of a lot easier to approach my previous employer about contributing back on company time/pay (they now do). They even came back with "but no GPL." One of the biggest problems in OSS is paid time/contributions, and GPL discouraged it in at least this one case.
- zelphirkalt 5y agoWhich is a bit weird, considering, that those things, that are contributed back, are not ensured to remain available, when anyone else makes modifications and has the option to make their changes a proprietary thing. One would think, that if any contributions flowing back are allowed by a company, then it is to GPL licensed projects, because competitors, who want to use it in their products, would have to also contribute back their modifications. Basically to ensure, that a competitor cannot gain an invisible advantage based on ones code. (If all play by the rules.)