4 ms·
> I'm not sure it has much effect on how many developers are hired though. If they could have used it, they would just use their existing developers to build so
by bombolo 4y ago
> I'm not sure it has much effect on how many developers are hired though. If they could have used it, they would just use their existing developers to build something else.
Yes. But while the developer build the something else, they can't build the original thing. So the company either hires more people or keeps the current people on the payroll for longer.
It's a simplification, but I guess we can agree that if a person is reimplementing GPL licensed code, they won't be implementing something else in that same time?
> They would just build slightly less capable products. Their competitors are in the same position after all.
Unless the competition starts to say that they will release their products under GPL license. Then they have a gigantic upper hand, and society gets that free software as well.
So in the end releasing MIT licensed software as an individual has only downsides for the person doing it (unless they have the fetish of the download counter spinning faster).
- MattPalmer1086 4y agoIt's certainly one perspective. For some types of software it may make sense. I generally release software under the BSD license. My goal is to allow the widest possible use with as few legal restrictions as possible. I have no moral objection to companies using my code, building on it and not contributing back, if that is what they want to do. I like seeing my stuff used and benefiting the maximum number of people. So far, everyone who had used my code has contributed back. Most people don't want to maintain forks and their own patches. My stuff isn't that strategic I guess. Just useful.