4 ms·
This is a really interesting project. However... It's licensed under GPLv3 -- in my experience, that's an instant turnoff for most .NET (C#/F#/VB.NET) develope
by profquail 13y ago
This is a really interesting project. However...
It's licensed under GPLv3 -- in my experience, that's an instant turnoff for most .NET (C#/F#/VB.NET) developers. If you changed the license to something like Apache 2.0, I think you'd get much more interest; not only new users, but new contributors too.
- 3825 13y agoWhat's wrong with GPLv3? I thought the only thing that changed from v2 was preventing tivotization?
- danabramov 13y agoI think he means commercial use in closed-source projects. So it's not v2 vs v3, but GPL vs Apache or MIT.
- profquail 13y agoYes, that's what I meant. Most -- nearly all -- major open-source projects written in C# (or other .NET languages) are permissively licensed. Yes, that means people could just grab the code and use it in their own closed-source projects without giving back; but, as far as I've seen, most devs are happy to contribute back to the projects they use in whatever way they can.
- rbehrends 13y agoIt's not just commercial use. Non-permissive open source licenses are also frequently incompatible with one another [1]. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibl...
- wes-exp 13y agoGPL (2 and 3) is completely hostile to commercial (i.e. proprietary) use. In a big middle finger to business, v2 even describes a hypothetical businessperson as "Ty Coon, President of Vice".
- stephth 13y agoDoes it matter here from a user standpoint? The compiler is strictly licensed but the user's work - Ć code and generated code - shouldn't be tied to any predefined license, or am I missing something?