2 ms·

You're only seeing the alleged benefits from GPL, without factoring in its costs. Everything is a tradeoff. Some companies don't touch GPL code, which means tho

You're only seeing the alleged benefits from GPL, without factoring in its costs. Everything is a tradeoff. Some companies don't touch GPL code, which means those projects receive less support than they would with a more permissive license such as MIT/BSD. You're claiming GPL "[encourages] organisations to release their code under a similar license". I'm saying it often discourages organisations from ever touching GPL code and picking other libraries instead. People have been writing about this in way more detail for a long time. If you're really trying to understand some position you can't possibly fathom and not just argue, then I'd point you to one post from 15 years ago: https://sealedabstract.com/rants/why-the-gpl-sucks/index.html https://sealedabstract.com/rants/why-the-gpl-sucks/index.htm...

Timon3 2y ago
No, I'm not only seeing the alleged benefits, as I clearly explained in my previous comment. MIT/BSD brings their own societal good, but it's a different societal good, and it's not an equivalent societal good. Just because you gain some societal good doesn't mean you gain the exact same societal good. Unless you're trying to misunderstand OP, it's not a hard concept. GPL/LGPL has advantage A. MIT/BSD has advantage B. A and B are different. Even if B is greater than A, it still doesn't mean that A is a subset of B. You keep acting like the only thing that matters is |A| and |B|, because you're somehow fixated on this being a comparison. Try re-reading the original comment without adding in words like "marginal". You'll see that there is no comparison made between societal goods.