4 ms·
Licenses intended to be viral and poisonous are avoided by companies interested in ownership over their own IP. Huge shocker.
by DangitBobby 3y ago
Licenses intended to be viral and poisonous are avoided by companies interested in ownership over their own IP. Huge shocker.
- josephcsible 3y agoWhat do you mean by "poisonous"?
- fungiblecog 3y agoIt's just a classic F.U.D (fear, uncertainty and doubt) tactic
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- DangitBobby 3y agoThey are intentionally dangerous to unwitting license holders who wield them wrong.
- nine_k 3y agoI suppose it's about the patent clause.
- komali2 3y ago> viral and poisonous Viral, perhaps if you integrate a library, but in this case it doesn't make sense, you only need to distribute source code if you modify it. Poisonous makes no sense to me, can you clarify? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous 1. DESTRUCTIVE, HARMFUL ... 3. SPITEFUL, MALICIOUS In what ways is the GPL or AGPL destructive or harmful or spiteful or malicious? I find it the exact opposite of all those concepts.
- kstrauser 3y agoIt’s not, except to people who want to use GPLed software without holding up their end of the bargain.
- DangitBobby 3y agoCan they hurt you if you accidentally use them without understanding the consequences?
- komali2 3y agoHmm, it sounds to me like so much of our world is poison, then. Most surveillance-capitalism software (so the bulk of the most popular websites) are for example poisonous then, no? Unless you'd like to argue that unintentionally turning yourself into a research subject isn't really harmful, in which case I argue accidentally using a license that requires you to share any licensed code you change to also not really be harmful.
- DangitBobby 3y agoYou can do whatever you want with your code, you just really shouldn't act surprised when people avoid it so it can't hurt them. They don't see the tradeoff as being worth it. Maybe they don't in the other cases you are presenting as "poisonous" but in those situations they either aren't aware that it's posoin or they are aware and think that it's worth the tradeoff. Regardless, businesses have pretty much universally decided to avoid. I think that speaks volumes.
- komali2 3y ago> Regardless, businesses have pretty much universally decided to avoid. I think that speaks volumes. I don't typically make my decisions based on what businesses "universally decide" (have they actually?). Most businesses are shareholder or private corporations that find margin between labor and sales; I instead structured a business as a co-op and that seems to be working just fine. Many businesses profit off polluting the environment or selling weapons; I've never worked DoD or O&G (and never will) and lead an extraordinarily comfortable and privileged life regardless. Many content creator businesses lock their content behind paywalls, riddle their sites with ads and tracking; I put up a simple blog in html and css and my audience might be small but they are engaged and are in conversation with me. I'm not trying to say i'm a special ethical snowflake that's better than everyone else, I'm saying I don't really take it as a given that "businesses doing things in a certain" way really means much of anything at all. In fact I've found often profit correlates with harm (and that businesses often make decisions that don't lead to long, long-term profits but rather pillage themselves for short-term profits), O&G being a great example, so I might even be able to take "businesses do it that way" as a warning to not do it that way or I might be hurting people.
- hoten 3y agoIf you don't distribute the program you don't need to care that it's built with GPL dependencies.