3 ms·
> the GPL would not stop someone "making major changes, and releasing it as proprietary software for consoles and make a lot of money in the process."" It abso
by the_af 5y ago
> the GPL would not stop someone "making major changes, and releasing it as proprietary software for consoles and make a lot of money in the process.""
It absolutely would stop anyone from releasing it as proprietary software. You cannot have GPL'ed proprietary software. You can sell GPL code, you can use it in proprietary platforms, but by definition the software itself cannot be proprietary. If it's GPL'ed, other people can sell it, modify it, distribute it, and use it for their own purposes.
- bruce511 5y ago>> You cannot have GPL'ed proprietary software. I get that, hence me saying "they would be obligated to release the source code." My point is that has little or no effect on the actual sales of the program (since the parent post was primarily about money.) There are reasons to prefer GPL over MIT, and other reasons to prefer MIT over GPL, but money isn't one of them...
- bluecatswim 5y ago>(since the parent post was primarily about money) I don't think so, it was about making money through selling it as proprietary software.
- the_af 5y agoI understood the key word was "proprietary" in the comment you refer to, with the side effect of also "making lots of money". I might have misunderstood.