2 ms·

> leeching How is it "leeching" if I deliberately release my source code under a BSD license because I don't care if other people use it or not? It can't be "l

> leeching How is it "leeching" if I deliberately release my source code under a BSD license because I don't care if other people use it or not? It can't be "leeching" if I don't care about their contributions either. The only other scenario that would apply is if I wanted to be paid for my work... in which case neither a BSD-like license, nor the GPL, would be adequate. This is the problem I have with GPL partisans: They refuse to accept that projects can be completed, or that anyone can have any interests other than GPL-compatible ones.

0dayz 4y ago
Using a pet project nobody is expected to use as an example is a nil point, I could release a pet project in "WTFPL" or "Fuck You Nobody Is Allowed To Use" license and it wouldn't make a difference , if the concerns are that low for said project. Monetization in FOSS is a systemic issue, with few exceptions, but even then you are far more likely that companies won't want to risk leeching with a GPL like license than a permissive one because of the code sharing requirement, which MIT/BSD at best only incentives as goodwill because of complexity maintaining the project they rely on. I also find it funny you create a strawman, i never stated any adoration of GPL.