4 ms·

because working publicly on software is the right way to make software. Try explaining that to a middle aged balding manager who just wants to get through the n

because working publicly on software is the right way to make software. Try explaining that to a middle aged balding manager who just wants to get through the next quarter without getting canned. You can make an easier case to use permissive software, and once you're using it you can make an easier case to submit public work. To me, that says we need more pressure, not less.

Sanddancer 14y ago
I'd argue that history shows otherwise. GPLv3, with its increased restrictions, proved a bridge too far for a lot of projects, to the detriment of everyone. Apple, the FreeBSD project, the OpenBSD project, etc have all put in efforts to divest themselves of GPL encumbered code because it increased the costs of using the software. Because the wording of things like the patent clauses were so questionable, it became much cheaper in terms of lawyer time, etc, to either use older software that was still under GPLv2, or to use software using less-encumbered licenses, like BSD and MIT. That balding middle manager needs to make sure that that license is acceptable by his boss, by the people in the legal department, etc. For example, an innocuous throwaway line of a program that can only be used for "good, not evil," ends up needing to get the lawyers involved for clarification and special waivers ( http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions ). If the internal costs of using an encumbered program are too great, then chances are, it just won't get used; the company will either write their own version, or use a commmercial variant.
- GhotiFish 14y ago
  That's well argued. Truth be told IANAL, I know the GPL has being patched to avoid people shirking it's intention. If it became a bit of a monster because of that, I would not be aware.
stcredzero 14y ago
> Try explaining that to a middle aged balding manager Argument through unattractive stereotype? > To me, that says we need more pressure, not less. Because more pressure makes us more free, I guess.

Sanddancer 14y ago

I'd argue that history shows otherwise. GPLv3, with its increased restrictions, proved a bridge too far for a lot of projects, to the detriment of everyone. Apple, the FreeBSD project, the OpenBSD project, etc have all put in efforts to divest themselves of GPL encumbered code because it increased the costs of using the software. Because the wording of things like the patent clauses were so questionable, it became much cheaper in terms of lawyer time, etc, to either use older software that was still under GPLv2, or to use software using less-encumbered licenses, like BSD and MIT. That balding middle manager needs to make sure that that license is acceptable by his boss, by the people in the legal department, etc. For example, an innocuous throwaway line of a program that can only be used for "good, not evil," ends up needing to get the lawyers involved for clarification and special waivers ( http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions ). If the internal costs of using an encumbered program are too great, then chances are, it just won't get used; the company will either write their own version, or use a commmercial variant.

GhotiFish 14y ago
That's well argued. Truth be told IANAL, I know the GPL has being patched to avoid people shirking it's intention. If it became a bit of a monster because of that, I would not be aware.

stcredzero 14y ago

> Try explaining that to a middle aged balding manager Argument through unattractive stereotype? > To me, that says we need more pressure, not less. Because more pressure makes us more free, I guess.