4 ms·

One should choose a license that fits them. The problem with GPL licenses is they are viral and non-permissive. As a developer, as soon as I see the GPL I just

One should choose a license that fits them. The problem with GPL licenses is they are viral and non-permissive. As a developer, as soon as I see the GPL I just click away to another repo no matter how good the lib is. I don't want people doing that to my projects, so I use Apache/MIT or whatever the permissive license that is most prominent for the language I'm using.

krupan 1y ago
Hi! Do you work for Microsoft? There is nothing "non-permissive" about the GPL. You can use the code however you want. "Viral" is a perjorative description that Microsoft pioneered the use of to describe the GPL. The GPL is not a virus that latches onto any code it gets near, without anyone's permission. You should not use that term.
- nu11ptr 1y ago
  > The GPL is not a virus that latches onto any code it gets near Honestly, that is EXACTLY how I feel about it. If I use GPL code in my code then my code must also be GPL (if I distribute). The term seems to fit to me. And no, I've never worked for MS.
  - krupan 1y ago
    Viruses are things that latch onto other things without their permission. If you choose to build off of GPL code then yes, you must preserve the GPL license. There's an important difference. It's actually the same as any other copyrighted code (and in the US, all code is automatically copyrighted and restricted). You cannot just take code and use it in your project. GPL code is nothing special.
    - nu11ptr 1y ago
      It is very easy to accidently use a GPL library without knowing it, especially if it is a dependency of a dependency and you aren't using a license scanner.
      - kstrauser 1y ago
        It’s very easy to do all sorts of incorrect stuff if you totally ignore your responsibilities. If you're not redistributing the GPL library, then it doesn't matter. If you are, then there are all sorts of other licenses which come with the same (or greater) headaches.
        nu11ptr 1y ago
        > If you are, then there are all sorts of other licenses which come with the same (or greater) headaches. I avoid those as well
pama 1y ago
One could argue that GPL is very permissive. If you need to use it in a proprietary way in your own company for internal purposes, no problem; if you release software that others use, you have to release the code as well. I dont want to be using black boxes in this day and age.
- nu11ptr 1y ago
  Permissiveness is relative, so in relation to MIT/BSD/Apache, it is not.
  - pama 1y ago
    As a user of code I feel it is more permissive to me to see the code. As a licenser of code I want what is best for me and for others as a user and future developer. Others are free to do anything as long as they dont remove the license and the modified code if they release a software. If one wanted a different linguistic of pseudo philosophical spin, one could argue that a society would be more permissive than ours in a similar sense that MIT is more permissive than GNU, if it allowed free killing of random people for no reason. Nobody wants to live in such a society and it would not develop as fast as our society. I want to live in a society that permits collaboration, editing, and modification of software I use under the guarantee of the license.
    - nu11ptr 1y ago
      > As a user of code I feel it is more permissive to me to see the code. As a licenser of code I want what is best for me and for others as a user and future developer. That is a fair point. I admit I'm speaking purely from a selfish dev perspective. I am glad there are other licenses available, and that people are free to choose what fits them. I myself simply won't use GPL code, however, for the reasons I've specified.

krupan 1y ago

Hi! Do you work for Microsoft? There is nothing "non-permissive" about the GPL. You can use the code however you want. "Viral" is a perjorative description that Microsoft pioneered the use of to describe the GPL. The GPL is not a virus that latches onto any code it gets near, without anyone's permission. You should not use that term.

nu11ptr 1y ago
> The GPL is not a virus that latches onto any code it gets near Honestly, that is EXACTLY how I feel about it. If I use GPL code in my code then my code must also be GPL (if I distribute). The term seems to fit to me. And no, I've never worked for MS.
- krupan 1y ago
  Viruses are things that latch onto other things without their permission. If you choose to build off of GPL code then yes, you must preserve the GPL license. There's an important difference. It's actually the same as any other copyrighted code (and in the US, all code is automatically copyrighted and restricted). You cannot just take code and use it in your project. GPL code is nothing special.
  - nu11ptr 1y ago
    It is very easy to accidently use a GPL library without knowing it, especially if it is a dependency of a dependency and you aren't using a license scanner.
    - kstrauser 1y ago
      It’s very easy to do all sorts of incorrect stuff if you totally ignore your responsibilities. If you're not redistributing the GPL library, then it doesn't matter. If you are, then there are all sorts of other licenses which come with the same (or greater) headaches.
      - nu11ptr 1y ago
        > If you are, then there are all sorts of other licenses which come with the same (or greater) headaches. I avoid those as well

pama 1y ago

One could argue that GPL is very permissive. If you need to use it in a proprietary way in your own company for internal purposes, no problem; if you release software that others use, you have to release the code as well. I dont want to be using black boxes in this day and age.

nu11ptr 1y ago
Permissiveness is relative, so in relation to MIT/BSD/Apache, it is not.
- pama 1y ago
  As a user of code I feel it is more permissive to me to see the code. As a licenser of code I want what is best for me and for others as a user and future developer. Others are free to do anything as long as they dont remove the license and the modified code if they release a software. If one wanted a different linguistic of pseudo philosophical spin, one could argue that a society would be more permissive than ours in a similar sense that MIT is more permissive than GNU, if it allowed free killing of random people for no reason. Nobody wants to live in such a society and it would not develop as fast as our society. I want to live in a society that permits collaboration, editing, and modification of software I use under the guarantee of the license.
  - nu11ptr 1y ago
    > As a user of code I feel it is more permissive to me to see the code. As a licenser of code I want what is best for me and for others as a user and future developer. That is a fair point. I admit I'm speaking purely from a selfish dev perspective. I am glad there are other licenses available, and that people are free to choose what fits them. I myself simply won't use GPL code, however, for the reasons I've specified.