5 ms·
> Not integrating so well with other open source licenses is one of the cons. That depends on what you want. If you want a license that will play well with clo
by tylercrompton 3y ago
> Not integrating so well with other open source licenses is one of the cons.
That depends on what you want. If you want a license that will play well with closed source software, then yeah, it's a downside. But the GPL family comes from the perspective of a developer who wants to retain their rights while respecting others' desire for the same. If you care about your rights, then this is an upside.
- kaba0 3y agoCDDL (ZFS’s license) is also like that, the problem is exactly the two “strong” copyleft licenses.
- jakobson14 3y agohttps://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CDDL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CDDL >"It has a weak per-file copyleft (like version 1 of the Mozilla Public License)" The CDDL isn't a strong copyleft licence. It doesn't give a shit what larger project you include the code into, and it doesn't give a shit how you licence the resulting binary. It's considerably more permissive than the GPL. The conflict is entirely on the GPL side.