4 ms·
Any company past circa 2002sh or so, and definitely by 2005, is intimately aware of their intellectual property responsibilities, and, it's the opposite problem
by ghshephard 5y ago
Any company past circa 2002sh or so, and definitely by 2005, is intimately aware of their intellectual property responsibilities, and, it's the opposite problem that I've run into - in which tons of strawmen are thrown up as to the danger of infecting products with open source licenses makes it dangerous to touch the code. One of the reasons why BSD licenses are so attractive to corporations, is that they run the lowest risk. GPLv3 is obviously a non-starter for most companies, with GPLv2 falling somewhere in the middle.
- mehrdada 5y ago> GPLv3 is obviously a non-starter for most companies "Non-starter" is a gross mischaracterization for GPLv3 for most companies, even most software companies, considering there is quite a bit of GPLv3 software in a modern GNU+Linux distro that they likely rely on.
- setpatchaddress 5y agoI think the parent is referring to the code they ship as part of their own products, which for most companies is definitely not GPL3 if they can avoid it.
- ghshephard 5y agoThanks for clarifying that. I'm also definitely referring to the software that companies ship that is not meant to be open source. GPLv2 is mostly safe as long as you don't link to it (Unless its LGPL and you dynamically link). Try and find a single major corporation in the world that is willing to bind it's proprietary intellectual property to GPLv3. It's a tribute, honestly, to that license that most companies realize that they have to go all-in on open-source (at which point GPLv3 is fine)