3 ms·
I agree 100% with you, but one reason why lately I look at GPL with suspicious is that it's long and complex enough that I'm not sure every contributor to GPL f
by antirez 14y ago
I agree 100% with you, but one reason why lately I look at GPL with suspicious is that it's long and complex enough that I'm not sure every contributor to GPL fully realizes the implications. It's not just "if you modify you need to release the modified version" as I believed. The SDR Touch affair clearly shows it. Also the problem when linking to closed source code.
This idea that it's ok to make money using the GPL in one way (just using the software as it is, as a service, like when you run a copy of MySQL) and not into another way (by using a GPL library in your closed source app, just releasing back what you changed in the GPL code) is very odd IMHO, probably not in the spirit of code sharing.
- keenerd 14y agoWell yeah, the GPL states that it needs to be trivially easy for end-users to replace the GPL chunk with their own code. Because in the past (Tivo) GPL code was used against people. Two separate packages is the simplest way to do it. And I feel the 'no bundling' thing is a little over the top. As long as rtl_tcp was a separate file that you could easily replace, it seems it fit the letter of the license. I know I'm[1] not going to convince you, but the GPL exists for a reason as does the BSD. BSD puts the rights of the programmer first and foremost. This is useful at times, but it also lets bad apples ruin a code base. GPL puts protecting the code first. (And to a lesser extent, the end-user.) In the end, it means that GPL code is basically immortal because no one person/group can control the code base. [1] keenerd from rtl-sdr