3 ms·
Many developers disagree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU Gives just one example of folks who are acti
by slownews45 5y ago
Many developers disagree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU
Gives just one example of folks who are active in this space thought. GPLv3 is very different than v2.
Edited: Some quick stats as well:
Permissive licenses are on the rise. In 2012, 59% of components' licenses were copyleft and 41% permissive. In 2019, that has fully swung the other way with 67% of components having permissive licenses and 33% copyleft. Permissive licenses face few restrictions on how others can use components.
MIT was the most popular license in 2019 at 27%. The MIT license lets folks do almost anything they want with the code as long as they attribute it and don't hold you liable.
Apache 2.0 jumped over GPL 3.0 in 2017 to number two and it's still there with 23%. It gives you patent rights while allowing modifications and distribution of larger works under different terms and without source code.
- Techrepublic
- gumby 5y agoI don’t understand the point you’re making. You asserted that that v3 is inconsistent with the historical intent of the gnu project; I argued that it was not, based in part on my involvement going back into the 90s. Of course you can disagree with me, but the choice various developers might make is unrelated to that. It merely shows that various people don’t agree with the goals of the FSF. Which may be interesting but has nothing to do with the licence’s fidelity to the FSF’s objectives.