4 ms·

There are lots of communities around GPL licensed software as well, so that's kinda a moot point, no? The assumptions you cite are not the primary reason GPL s

There are lots of communities around GPL licensed software as well, so that's kinda a moot point, no? The assumptions you cite are not the primary reason GPL software is considered "best for users" (by some). The second point is not even relevant for users but developers. GPL software is guaranteed to stay free. That's what's relevant for the user. (Personally I like both kinds of licenses, so I'm not arguing for/against either)

dragonwriter 13y ago
> There are lots of communities around GPL licensed software as well, so that's kinda a moot point, no? No, the point wasn't "only permissively licensed software can have communities" (which would be ridiculous), it was "the fact that many organizations are less receptive to the GPL can result in larger potential contributing communities for permissively-licensed projects". > GPL software is guaranteed to stay free. GPL software is no more guaranteed to stay free than permissively licensed software is. The closest thing to that that is a real difference between GPL and permissively-licensed software is that, assuming no radical change on the part of the FSF (or, alternatively, assuming the "or any later version" option isn't used), GPL software is guarantted to not have legal non-free derivative works not separately licensed by the copyright owner. Which is relevant to the degree of control that the copyright owner can exercise -- and why it is popular for commercial Open Core schemes -- but not particularly relevant, at least in a positive sense, for users.
- andyroid 13y ago
  > "the fact that many organizations are less receptive to the GPL can result in larger potential contributing communities for permissively-licensed projects". "Can" result, perhaps, but there seems to be little real word data behind that claim. I've heard this a few times, but I've never seen any numbers to back it up. As a counter example: The Linux kernel seems to be the most commercially backed OSS project of all. If what you say would be true, why would the major players not flock to the BSD:s instead? > not particularly relevant, at least in a positive sense, for users. What you say about the GPL is only true for projects where copyright is assigned away from the contributor. And a lot of developers as well as users tend to shy away from those for just the same reasons you state.
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    > "Can" result, perhaps, but there seems to be little real word data behind that claim. The wording of the claim is particularly relevant. You seemed to acknowledge it, but then ignored it. The claim doesn't require data; it's using a priori reasoning. In particular, it assumes that the GPL is one potential road block preventing certain entities from using software. If a roadblock is removed, then that can result in a larger community. (N.B. Removing a road block, in and of itself, doesn't imply that more people will come.) This is specifically one practical reason why I use permissive licenses. I want to maximize the number of people using my software. If I use the GPL, due to its infectious nature, people tell me they can't use it because their employer won't allow it. This conflicts with my goal of maximizing the number of people who can use my software. > As a counter example: The Linux kernel seems to be the most commercially backed OSS project of all. If what you say would be true, why would the major players not flock to the BSD:s instead? That's not a counter example. The claim in question here does not imply that GPL projects cannot have large communities.
    - andyroid 13y ago
      > That's not a counter example. Yes it is. Given the counter example one might just as well argue that the GPL can attract more commercial contributors than a permissively licensed project, or even that such licensing is a "roadblock" for some contributors. You really find this sort of "a priori reasoning" meaningful?
      - burntsushi 13y ago
        > Yes it is. A counter example demonstrates a claim as false by assuming it is true, and the demonstrating that, in reality, it is false. Your counter example does no such thing. It merely shows that a GPL project can be popular. In particular, your example does not denote any relationship between GPL and permissively licensed projects. > You really find this sort of "a priori reasoning" meaningful? Yes. Re-read my last comment to you. I explicitly described how it was meaningful. I'd rather remove roadblocks to using my software than add them.
    - 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> There are lots of communities around GPL licensed software as well, so that's kinda a moot point, no? No, the point wasn't "only permissively licensed software can have communities" (which would be ridiculous), it was "the fact that many organizations are less receptive to the GPL can result in larger potential contributing communities for permissively-licensed projects". > GPL software is guaranteed to stay free. GPL software is no more guaranteed to stay free than permissively licensed software is. The closest thing to that that is a real difference between GPL and permissively-licensed software is that, assuming no radical change on the part of the FSF (or, alternatively, assuming the "or any later version" option isn't used), GPL software is guarantted to not have legal non-free derivative works not separately licensed by the copyright owner. Which is relevant to the degree of control that the copyright owner can exercise -- and why it is popular for commercial Open Core schemes -- but not particularly relevant, at least in a positive sense, for users.

andyroid 13y ago
> "the fact that many organizations are less receptive to the GPL can result in larger potential contributing communities for permissively-licensed projects". "Can" result, perhaps, but there seems to be little real word data behind that claim. I've heard this a few times, but I've never seen any numbers to back it up. As a counter example: The Linux kernel seems to be the most commercially backed OSS project of all. If what you say would be true, why would the major players not flock to the BSD:s instead? > not particularly relevant, at least in a positive sense, for users. What you say about the GPL is only true for projects where copyright is assigned away from the contributor. And a lot of developers as well as users tend to shy away from those for just the same reasons you state.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  > "Can" result, perhaps, but there seems to be little real word data behind that claim. The wording of the claim is particularly relevant. You seemed to acknowledge it, but then ignored it. The claim doesn't require data; it's using a priori reasoning. In particular, it assumes that the GPL is one potential road block preventing certain entities from using software. If a roadblock is removed, then that can result in a larger community. (N.B. Removing a road block, in and of itself, doesn't imply that more people will come.) This is specifically one practical reason why I use permissive licenses. I want to maximize the number of people using my software. If I use the GPL, due to its infectious nature, people tell me they can't use it because their employer won't allow it. This conflicts with my goal of maximizing the number of people who can use my software. > As a counter example: The Linux kernel seems to be the most commercially backed OSS project of all. If what you say would be true, why would the major players not flock to the BSD:s instead? That's not a counter example. The claim in question here does not imply that GPL projects cannot have large communities.
  - andyroid 13y ago
    > That's not a counter example. Yes it is. Given the counter example one might just as well argue that the GPL can attract more commercial contributors than a permissively licensed project, or even that such licensing is a "roadblock" for some contributors. You really find this sort of "a priori reasoning" meaningful?
    - burntsushi 13y ago
      > Yes it is. A counter example demonstrates a claim as false by assuming it is true, and the demonstrating that, in reality, it is false. Your counter example does no such thing. It merely shows that a GPL project can be popular. In particular, your example does not denote any relationship between GPL and permissively licensed projects. > You really find this sort of "a priori reasoning" meaningful? Yes. Re-read my last comment to you. I explicitly described how it was meaningful. I'd rather remove roadblocks to using my software than add them.
  - 13y ago