4 ms·

The number of people who refuse to commit to MIT/BSD/etc. code is almost not existing, the number of people who refuse or cannot commit to GPL is plentiful. >

The number of people who refuse to commit to MIT/BSD/etc. code is almost not existing, the number of people who refuse or cannot commit to GPL is plentiful. > It makes me sad to see so much confusion, incorrect information, naiveté and paranoia going around regarding the GPL I agree, there are still too many people who think the GPL is _just_ another license. It's not and many figured this out the hard way after they already accepted contributions under the GPL and moving away has become hard to impossible.

kzrdude 5y ago
Moving away from any particular license is hard to impossible.
WastingMyTime89 5y ago
Not being able to relicense code provided by other people without their agreement is definitely a feature of any license. Let’s not kid ourself: the main reason companies don’t like the GPL is because they don’t want to share the code they actually use in their products. Making that impossible is an intended consequence of the license not some unforeseen flaw. If you are fine with companies profiteering from your work then choosing the MIT or BSD license definitely make sense. The whole discussion really is about commercial interest in the end.
- the_mitsuhiko 5y ago
  The biggest risk of the GPL is in fact not companies but to you as a creator. If you plan on commercializing your work in any capacity, accepting contributions under the GPL will be the end of that. Given the murky laws around copyright reassignment getting contributions in under a more liberal license so you retain extra rights yourself is tricky. There are many projects which learned after a few years that their choice of license backfired on them.
  - WastingMyTime89 5y ago
    > The biggest risk of the GPL is in fact not companies but to you as a creator. If you plan on commercializing your work in any capacity, accepting contributions under the GPL will be the end of that. If you accept contributions, that’s not your work anymore. That’s your work and your contributors work. You are still perfectly free of removing said work and commercialise your own. You just can’t profite from the work of others without asking them. That’s a feature of the license not a risk. > Given the murky laws around copyright reassignment getting contributions in under a more liberal license so you retain extra rights yourself is tricky. You are misrepresenting the situation once again. It is not about retaining your own right. The whole issue is on the work of others.
    - the_mitsuhiko 5y ago
      Something does not stop being my work when it hat contributions from others but generally that’s besides the point. The main issue of GPL comes from the risk to the original creator itself. Others not using the software is less the concern.
      - sangnoir 5y ago
        > The main issue of GPL comes from the risk to the original creator itself The risk of abiding by the license? The GPL ensures user have access to source code provided under the license, so I'm assuming by "commercializing" you mean hiding away source code that used to be public? The calculus is simple: if you want to make money by doing an open-source bait-and-switch, do not license your code under GPL.
        the_mitsuhiko 5y ago
        Commercializing can happen in many ways. GPL code in itself can’t even be published on the app store without violating the license. If you are not the complete copyright holder you can run into issues very quickly.
        sangnoir 5y ago

kzrdude 5y ago

Moving away from any particular license is hard to impossible.

WastingMyTime89 5y ago

Not being able to relicense code provided by other people without their agreement is definitely a feature of any license. Let’s not kid ourself: the main reason companies don’t like the GPL is because they don’t want to share the code they actually use in their products. Making that impossible is an intended consequence of the license not some unforeseen flaw. If you are fine with companies profiteering from your work then choosing the MIT or BSD license definitely make sense. The whole discussion really is about commercial interest in the end.

the_mitsuhiko 5y ago
The biggest risk of the GPL is in fact not companies but to you as a creator. If you plan on commercializing your work in any capacity, accepting contributions under the GPL will be the end of that. Given the murky laws around copyright reassignment getting contributions in under a more liberal license so you retain extra rights yourself is tricky. There are many projects which learned after a few years that their choice of license backfired on them.
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  > The biggest risk of the GPL is in fact not companies but to you as a creator. If you plan on commercializing your work in any capacity, accepting contributions under the GPL will be the end of that. If you accept contributions, that’s not your work anymore. That’s your work and your contributors work. You are still perfectly free of removing said work and commercialise your own. You just can’t profite from the work of others without asking them. That’s a feature of the license not a risk. > Given the murky laws around copyright reassignment getting contributions in under a more liberal license so you retain extra rights yourself is tricky. You are misrepresenting the situation once again. It is not about retaining your own right. The whole issue is on the work of others.
  - the_mitsuhiko 5y ago
    Something does not stop being my work when it hat contributions from others but generally that’s besides the point. The main issue of GPL comes from the risk to the original creator itself. Others not using the software is less the concern.
    - sangnoir 5y ago
      > The main issue of GPL comes from the risk to the original creator itself The risk of abiding by the license? The GPL ensures user have access to source code provided under the license, so I'm assuming by "commercializing" you mean hiding away source code that used to be public? The calculus is simple: if you want to make money by doing an open-source bait-and-switch, do not license your code under GPL.
      - the_mitsuhiko 5y ago
        Commercializing can happen in many ways. GPL code in itself can’t even be published on the app store without violating the license. If you are not the complete copyright holder you can run into issues very quickly.
        sangnoir 5y ago