3 ms·

> I prefer the MPLv2, it lets commercial users actually use the code, but they still have to contribute back any changes they make. Sure, but how is this verif

> I prefer the MPLv2, it lets commercial users actually use the code, but they still have to contribute back any changes they make. Sure, but how is this verifiable? Not verifiable = not happening. Anyway, the idea of using a 20 line function in a 20M line codebase is a total strawman. Think of it from the 20 line function author's point of view - free money for corporate? They lack the expertise internally to write this function?? It's crypto code and getting it 100% right is extremely valuable? Then they need to be licensing it from the author. It sounds like the idea you have here is that someone has licensed their code under the GPL but "didn't really mean it"? I think you should flesh out that side of your argument... why should corporate be permitted to use this code? Authors who are worried can release their stuff as MIT or CC0.

snovv_crash 5y ago
Companies have a legal department to make sure this kind of thing is followed, otherwise they have potentially huge liabilities. For things that have a single author, the relicense option is possible, yes. But how about projects that have several? To me the great thing about software is that other people can use the code I wrote without it costing me anything. I understand the various attitudes of wanting others to be bound by some terms of sharing the work they do too, or paying for a license, but at least from my experience it limits the adoption of my code, and I'd rather my code be useful in as many places as possible, with the only requirement being that if you fix any bugs or extend the functionality in a deeply intrusive way, you contribute that back.