5 ms·
The author could release new versions with a more restrictive license.
by planede 3y ago
The author could release new versions with a more restrictive license.
- newaccount74 3y agoThe license is probably a reason for its popularity.
- planede 3y agoPossibly. Switching to GPL would probably mean that chromium can no longer use it (I think they use it currently, but I'm not 100% sure). Then they could switch to an other permissively licensed jpeg library that is maintained (is there any?), roll their own (probably forking an old version), or persuade the author to consider licensing new versions permissively (hopefully with some money).
- pornel 3y agoEvidently you can't have both unrestricted free use, and capture all the value you've created.
- mkl 3y agoBut the existing version under the permissive license already exists, and everyone can keep using it or even fork it. The only way a change to a more restrictive license could work is if there were really compelling features only available in that version.
- planede 3y agoWell, the author mostly complains about lack of funding for maintaining the library, making bug fixes and adding new features. So I think that's OK?
- pierat 3y agoIn the end, it's not the individuals who are greedy to the extreme. Instead, it's the companies that are pathologically greedy to the point of killing off what they need to survive. These companies could throw $10k or more at their FLOSS constituents to thank them. And more most of the companies we're talking here, is a rounding error of a rounding error. But, most don't cause there is no 'need' to. Why build a community when you can just use people up?
- newaccount74 3y agoEven that won't be guaranteed to work. Bash is forever stuck on an ancient version on macOS, because Apple doesn't want to touch GPLv3 code. At some point they switched to zsh for the default shell.