4 ms·

> "the fact that many organizations are less receptive to the GPL can result in larger potential contributing communities for permissively-licensed projects".

> "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.
- gillianseed 13y ago
  >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. But on the other hand a permissive licence could just as well be a road block preventing 'certain entities' from contributing code, and if it had a copyleft licence it could result in a larger amount of contributions. In short, in lack of any data to back either of these hypothesises means they are just that, hypothesises. There are successful collaborative projects using both types of licences, andydroid pointed out Linux which is GPL licenced and also the largest collaboratively developed software project in the world, so certainly GPL is not a serious problem when it comes to getting contributions or use (Linux is practically everywhere). Looking at the larger open source landscape, it's my impression that copyleft is predominantly used in larger, finished application type projects (of which Light Table is a perfect example), while permissive licencing dominates in component/framework style code. At the end of the day it's up to the developer to choose the licence for _their_ code, both copyleft and permissive licencing fulfills a need, else they would not be so popular amongst developers. >This is specifically one practical reason why I use permissive licenses. I want to maximize the number of people using my software. Nothing wrong with that, but there's also nothing wrong with wanting to licence your code so that end users of your code and it's derivatives are given rights (which include the source).
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    > But on the other hand a permissive licence could just as well be a road block preventing 'certain entities' from contributing code A permissive license, by definition, cannot prevent an entity from contributing to it. I've never heard anyone tell me they won't use a permissively licensed project for any reason related to its licensing. > In short, in lack of any data to back either of these hypothesises means they are just that, hypothesises. If you still think this claim requires data, then I'm afraid you're missing the point. The claim is using a priori reasoning, and makes an assumption about removing road blocks from using open source projects. The claim does not make any quantitative claims relating permissively licensed projects and GPL projects. In any case, making a quantitative claim here is nearly impossible. There are too many confounding factors. > Nothing wrong with that, but there's also nothing wrong with wanting to licence your code so that end users of your code and it's derivatives are given rights (which include the source). I don't understand your point here. I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. I merely stated that the claim made by dragonwriter actually factors into my decision to use permissive licenses. i.e., Anecdotally, the GPL is enough of a barrier that I perceive a permissive license as better if I want to maximize the number of people using my software.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> "Can" result, perhaps, but there seems to be little real word data behind that claim. There's a reason I use "can" instead of "does". Its very hard to quantify the effects of licensing since you can't easily isolate it from other contributing factors. > 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 a very good point. OTOH, while there are widely used GPL RDBMS, which ones have the non-first-party commercial backing of SQLite or Postgres? > What you say about the GPL is only true for projects where copyright is assigned away from the contributor. From the point of view of a downstream developer, its more of a concern with assignment, true. In any case, its not a positive benefit for users.

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.
gillianseed 13y ago
>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. But on the other hand a permissive licence could just as well be a road block preventing 'certain entities' from contributing code, and if it had a copyleft licence it could result in a larger amount of contributions. In short, in lack of any data to back either of these hypothesises means they are just that, hypothesises. There are successful collaborative projects using both types of licences, andydroid pointed out Linux which is GPL licenced and also the largest collaboratively developed software project in the world, so certainly GPL is not a serious problem when it comes to getting contributions or use (Linux is practically everywhere). Looking at the larger open source landscape, it's my impression that copyleft is predominantly used in larger, finished application type projects (of which Light Table is a perfect example), while permissive licencing dominates in component/framework style code. At the end of the day it's up to the developer to choose the licence for _their_ code, both copyleft and permissive licencing fulfills a need, else they would not be so popular amongst developers. >This is specifically one practical reason why I use permissive licenses. I want to maximize the number of people using my software. Nothing wrong with that, but there's also nothing wrong with wanting to licence your code so that end users of your code and it's derivatives are given rights (which include the source).
- burntsushi 13y ago
  > But on the other hand a permissive licence could just as well be a road block preventing 'certain entities' from contributing code A permissive license, by definition, cannot prevent an entity from contributing to it. I've never heard anyone tell me they won't use a permissively licensed project for any reason related to its licensing. > In short, in lack of any data to back either of these hypothesises means they are just that, hypothesises. If you still think this claim requires data, then I'm afraid you're missing the point. The claim is using a priori reasoning, and makes an assumption about removing road blocks from using open source projects. The claim does not make any quantitative claims relating permissively licensed projects and GPL projects. In any case, making a quantitative claim here is nearly impossible. There are too many confounding factors. > Nothing wrong with that, but there's also nothing wrong with wanting to licence your code so that end users of your code and it's derivatives are given rights (which include the source). I don't understand your point here. I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. I merely stated that the claim made by dragonwriter actually factors into my decision to use permissive licenses. i.e., Anecdotally, the GPL is enough of a barrier that I perceive a permissive license as better if I want to maximize the number of people using my software.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> "Can" result, perhaps, but there seems to be little real word data behind that claim. There's a reason I use "can" instead of "does". Its very hard to quantify the effects of licensing since you can't easily isolate it from other contributing factors. > 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 a very good point. OTOH, while there are widely used GPL RDBMS, which ones have the non-first-party commercial backing of SQLite or Postgres? > What you say about the GPL is only true for projects where copyright is assigned away from the contributor. From the point of view of a downstream developer, its more of a concern with assignment, true. In any case, its not a positive benefit for users.