3 ms·
In the company I work for the GPL is classified as high risk by legal. MIT and BSD style licenses are preferred because they don't have the viral effect that th
by moedersmooiste 4y ago
In the company I work for the GPL is classified as high risk by legal. MIT and BSD style licenses are preferred because they don't have the viral effect that the GPL has.
- t0suj4 4y agoGPL is user centric license.
- conz 4y ago> GPL is user centric license. GPL (and other share-and-share-alike licences) gives freedom to the software. BSD (and other attribution or public domain licences) gives freedom to the developer. Both give similar freedom to the users. In fact, they establish no restrictions on users or usage.
- t0suj4 4y agoWith GPL the user is entitled to access the source code of the software and any modifications which allows them to hire another developer if they aren't satisfied. With BSD (and other attribution licenses) it depends on the developer's goodwill whether the user can get the source code or not. GPL allows nearly frictionless transition
- conz 4y ago> With GPL the user is entitled to access the source code of the software and any modifications which allows them to hire another developer if they aren't satisfied. Absolutely, which is why I used the term of 'giving freedom to the code' - in perpetuity. > With BSD (and other attribution licenses) it depends on the developer's goodwill whether the user can get the source code or not. Concur, which again, is why I used the term of 'giving freedom to the developer' - to do with the code what she/he wants.
- smarx007 4y agoYes, but that’s for dependencies, not for using the software. E.g. not developing a proprietary compiler on top of GCC but should be no problem running MongoDB as a user. The use-case in the talk is the latter one, where users don’t fall under the viral provisions, only competitors do.