3 ms·

>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 re

>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.
- gillianseed 13y ago
  >A permissive license, by definition, cannot prevent an entity from contributing to it. Nor can a copyleft licence 'prevent' an entity from contributing it. It is a choice, just as someone could choose to only contribute to permissive projects they could also choose to only contribute to copyleft licenced projects, so I fail to see what point you are trying to make here. >I've never heard anyone tell me they won't use a permissively licensed project for any reason related to its licensing. Now you bring up 'use' which is different from 'contributing'. And given that copyleft requires the source code to be open, it can't be used with proprietary projects (which of course permissively licenced code can), but that is by design as copyleft exist to give end users the rights which proprietary software typically removes. >and makes an assumption about removing road blocks from using open source projects. And I pointed out the assumption is flawed since he (dragonwriter) talked about 'contribution'. Saying that a lot of 'entities' are happy to _use_ permissively licenced code is not the same as them _contributing_ code under permissive licences. > I merely stated that the claim made by dragonwriter actually factors into my decision to use permissive licenses. And I merely pointed out that there are other factors than 'maximising code use' which developers may consider when licencing their code. Oh, and I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for Wingo, really like it!
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    I never said the GPL was a roadblock for people contributing code. I said it was a roadblock for people using it. Pure and simple: someone works for an employer whose policy is not to use GPL'd code. Therefore, they cannot use any code I publish under the GPL license. No such policy exists (that I've heard of) for permissively licensed code. > Now you bring up 'use' which is different from 'contributing'. You're the one who said "contributing"! :-) I initially said "use" several comments ago: "I want to maximize the number of people using my software." > Oh, and I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for Wingo, really like it! Thanks :-) Come hang out on IRC/FreeNode at `#wingo`. (Although it's kind of dead.)
    - gillianseed 13y ago

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.

gillianseed 13y ago
>A permissive license, by definition, cannot prevent an entity from contributing to it. Nor can a copyleft licence 'prevent' an entity from contributing it. It is a choice, just as someone could choose to only contribute to permissive projects they could also choose to only contribute to copyleft licenced projects, so I fail to see what point you are trying to make here. >I've never heard anyone tell me they won't use a permissively licensed project for any reason related to its licensing. Now you bring up 'use' which is different from 'contributing'. And given that copyleft requires the source code to be open, it can't be used with proprietary projects (which of course permissively licenced code can), but that is by design as copyleft exist to give end users the rights which proprietary software typically removes. >and makes an assumption about removing road blocks from using open source projects. And I pointed out the assumption is flawed since he (dragonwriter) talked about 'contribution'. Saying that a lot of 'entities' are happy to _use_ permissively licenced code is not the same as them _contributing_ code under permissive licences. > I merely stated that the claim made by dragonwriter actually factors into my decision to use permissive licenses. And I merely pointed out that there are other factors than 'maximising code use' which developers may consider when licencing their code. Oh, and I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for Wingo, really like it!
- burntsushi 13y ago
  I never said the GPL was a roadblock for people contributing code. I said it was a roadblock for people using it. Pure and simple: someone works for an employer whose policy is not to use GPL'd code. Therefore, they cannot use any code I publish under the GPL license. No such policy exists (that I've heard of) for permissively licensed code. > Now you bring up 'use' which is different from 'contributing'. You're the one who said "contributing"! :-) I initially said "use" several comments ago: "I want to maximize the number of people using my software." > Oh, and I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for Wingo, really like it! Thanks :-) Come hang out on IRC/FreeNode at `#wingo`. (Although it's kind of dead.)
  - gillianseed 13y ago