13 ms·

Why would you want that? Genuine question. You say "lightweight" but what does that mean, and why is it "fraught"? I think it's great, and as far as I understa

• bch 4y ago
  I say "lightweight" in terms of text and comprehension. I say "fraught" because it imposes conditions on running this on the network. Perhaps fraught is too editorial. Regardless - in some environments, that "stickiness" of the GPL is a non-starter. One may say that "weeding out" those envs is part of the point. In my opinion though, for things like libraries or "lower level" software there seems to be a school of thought where "getting it out there" is more important than "saving it" from modifications. I tend to think of GPL[2/3] as for end-user applications, like openoffice or ardour[0] (paging 'PaulDavisThe1st) and libraries and network services as mit/bsd/isc/lgpl so they can interact with Other Software without forcing anything on that Other Software. I hesitated even posting my original comment, but don't mind getting a potentially new read on others devs point of view on this area. Briefly, on "block[ing] companies ... that [don't] bring anything of value...", you also block orgs that would bring value, but might not want to be legislated to publish everything. [0] https://ardour.org/ https://ardour.org/