3 ms·
As a partial answer to your question, I for one thought that Zed's final point made sense (and made me better understand the GPL): Open source to open source,
by jon_dahl 17y ago
As a partial answer to your question, I for one thought that Zed's final point made sense (and made me better understand the GPL):
Open source to open source, corporation to corporation.
Basically, you can do just about anything with MIT- or BSD-licensed software. But the GPL tries to make everything around it GPL too. If you build software that integrates with a GPL'd library, you have to release your software with a GPL (or similar) license.
So Zed's plan is to offer his software under a GPL license for free (open-source to open-source), and also sell it without the GPL license for pay (corp to corp).
Good place to go for GPL info: the GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html)
- enjo 17y agoIn the case of mongrel or lamson, I don't see the difference. All of the binding clauses of the GPL apply to distribution. It isn't until I distribute it that I have any responsibilities at all. So if I use mongrel or lamson I'm not distributing that code in binary or source form. Thus, if I want to use the code I can do whatever the hell I want (modify it, use it, print it out and bathe in)... until I distribute it somehow (which a typical web-app never does) it makes zero difference. I'm VERY confused after reading this rant as to what Zed thinks this actually does.
- nudded 17y agosay Zed released Mongrel under a BSD-license, then any big company (or any person really) could come in and modify it, make it better and then sell it. And Zed would be left with nothing. That's what GPL is for, adjusting it is fine, but you can't make money out of a redistributed modified version.
- Tichy 17y agoYou can sell GPLed software, Linux distributors did it for years.