4 ms·

This article is written in a confusing manner but his point is basically that the GPL forces people who write software that derives from GPL licensed code to op

This article is written in a confusing manner but his point is basically that the GPL forces people who write software that derives from GPL licensed code to open source their derivative software. By doing so it discourages people from using GPL licensed software because some of those developers might want to close their source code. I see the point but I’m not sure I agree with it. He claims the open source community “loses allies” when it enforces the GPL against companies who closed their source. But if those people are taking GPL licensed code and violating the terms than they are not allies at all. So his argument really boils down to having the GPL but not enforcing it so you can keep allies that are allies in name only. There are more permissive open source licenses out there and if a developer wants someone to be able to use their open source code in closed source projects they can use one of those. But when people choose the GPL they are doing so to further the ideal of completely open source code. Meaning allies like the ones described above are counter-productive because they would compromise that ideal by doing exactly what the GPL users are fighting against.

davidw 18y ago
Here's what he's getting at, perhaps: if you have some code that's more "library like" in the sense that it's not a standalone product, people including it in their own proprietary products isn't going to hurt you that much, and if they're smart, they may even contribute back to the project, especially if your code isn't really a competitive advantage for them. If your code is GPL, you lose those potential contributors. Case in point, I know a few people are using Hecl in commercial products, and yet they have made some very nice contributions back to the project, something that wouldn't have happened had it been under the GPL.
- TomOfTTB 18y ago
  I get that. I'm just saying I think people who use the GPL do so because they want the software industry to develop an open source culture. Their idealogues in that way. They want to change the world in addition to creating software which makes their aim different from someone who just throws their code open for the heck of it. So allowing people to use their code for closed source projects would be working against their cause.
  - davidw 18y ago
    Some GPL users (RMS) are definitely like that. I think many others simply "don't want to be ripped off", and like the license because it makes them feel safe that way.

davidw 18y ago

Here's what he's getting at, perhaps: if you have some code that's more "library like" in the sense that it's not a standalone product, people including it in their own proprietary products isn't going to hurt you that much, and if they're smart, they may even contribute back to the project, especially if your code isn't really a competitive advantage for them. If your code is GPL, you lose those potential contributors. Case in point, I know a few people are using Hecl in commercial products, and yet they have made some very nice contributions back to the project, something that wouldn't have happened had it been under the GPL.

TomOfTTB 18y ago
I get that. I'm just saying I think people who use the GPL do so because they want the software industry to develop an open source culture. Their idealogues in that way. They want to change the world in addition to creating software which makes their aim different from someone who just throws their code open for the heck of it. So allowing people to use their code for closed source projects would be working against their cause.
- davidw 18y ago
  Some GPL users (RMS) are definitely like that. I think many others simply "don't want to be ripped off", and like the license because it makes them feel safe that way.