4 ms·

I am more interested in using MySQL for my next project now. I know that this is not a popular opinion, but I disagree with the philosophy behind the GPL. Whil

I am more interested in using MySQL for my next project now. I know that this is not a popular opinion, but I disagree with the philosophy behind the GPL. While I think that sharing is fine (and for that there are the BSD and MIT licenses, among many others), I believe that it is very often better for both developers (and users) if users pay for the software they use. (And yes, I have heard the pro-GPL argument about how you can charge for support, but I know that's bogus in practice.) I am not saying the GPL should be outlawed or anything like that. I'm just saying that it's not a moral ideal (the actual moral ideal is you making a sustainable living off of the code you write), and it's practically speaking a bad idea in many cases.

snowpalmer 13y ago
The GPL and paying for a product are completely different things and they can exist together (i.e. paying for a product that is itself GPL)
tjr 13y ago
What do you find preferable about BSD and MIT licenses in this respect?
- trippy_biscuits 13y ago
  My employer's legal department loves BSD and MIT licenses because it's easier to sell software that way. When we need to update or add a new library or application, BSD/MIT licensed software get approved much more quickly. For example, we need to update the snmp package but we can't get it through legal because the license for many of the modules changed to GPLv3. A new python module would really make some things easier, but we can't get it through legal (GPL again).
  - belorn 13y ago
    I must ask, have your employer ever purchased a proprietary application/module to use in any product? In a logical world, those kind of deals should have a ever worse time going through the legal department than GPL.
nknighthb 13y ago
> I know that this is not a popular opinion Nonsensical, inconsistent opinions aren't very popular, you're right. There is no reason to like BSD/MIT because they allow "sharing" but dislike the GPL because people should pay for software, except that one allows you to personally profit from the work of others without giving back, and the other does not. Meanwhile, IBM makes billions in "bogus" revenue based on Linux solutions, and Red Hat had $1.3 billion in "bogus" revenue last year.

snowpalmer 13y ago

The GPL and paying for a product are completely different things and they can exist together (i.e. paying for a product that is itself GPL)

tjr 13y ago

What do you find preferable about BSD and MIT licenses in this respect?

trippy_biscuits 13y ago
My employer's legal department loves BSD and MIT licenses because it's easier to sell software that way. When we need to update or add a new library or application, BSD/MIT licensed software get approved much more quickly. For example, we need to update the snmp package but we can't get it through legal because the license for many of the modules changed to GPLv3. A new python module would really make some things easier, but we can't get it through legal (GPL again).
- belorn 13y ago
  I must ask, have your employer ever purchased a proprietary application/module to use in any product? In a logical world, those kind of deals should have a ever worse time going through the legal department than GPL.

nknighthb 13y ago

> I know that this is not a popular opinion Nonsensical, inconsistent opinions aren't very popular, you're right. There is no reason to like BSD/MIT because they allow "sharing" but dislike the GPL because people should pay for software, except that one allows you to personally profit from the work of others without giving back, and the other does not. Meanwhile, IBM makes billions in "bogus" revenue based on Linux solutions, and Red Hat had $1.3 billion in "bogus" revenue last year.