4 ms·

In other words, the GPL is something that is tolerated insofar as it doesn't conflict with existing business goals. Which, for the vast majority of businesses,

by gloob 17y ago

In other words, the GPL is something that is tolerated insofar as it doesn't conflict with existing business goals. Which, for the vast majority of businesses, it really doesn't. The number of companies that distribute software, whether compiled or as source, is really quite tiny when compared to the number of companies that use software. Not to say that the GPL isn't a problem for some companies, and it's hardly surprising that said companies would pull out this metaphorical splinter if that is viable for them, but it seems implausible to me that (e.g.) Nike is horrified at the thought that their website is completely dependent upon GPL'd code. I don't think there are many sane people who expect corporations to stick their necks out for the GPL as a matter of principle; that said, I don't think many people really care. Hell, even the FSF will usually leave companies alone if they just follow the bloody license attached to the software they're using.

antonovka 17y ago
Yes, but this doesn't mean that the GPL is a success -- rather, the software has succeeded on its own merit in spite of the downsides of the GPL. In contrast, there are numerous examples where potential software success has been restricted by the limitations of the GPL.
- gloob 17y ago
  I don't really disagree...except that fulfilling "potential software success" isn't the point of the GPL. The point of the GPL is to propagate Stallman's "Four Freedoms", and anything/everything else really is tangential to the issue. Whether or not the license has held back companies, or individual developers, or the evolution of software development as a whole isn't really the primary concern of those who use or support the use of the GPL. From that perspective, what you refer to as "the downsides of the GPL" really aren't downsides, any more than an apple being green instead of red is a "downside". The point of the apple is to be eaten; colour is more or less irrelevant. The point of the GPL is to make certain a specific ethical belief is followed and transmitted; whether that ideology is convenient or not for others is secondary at best. Calling the license a "failure" from a viewpoint completely different than the one it was created by is trivial and meaningless, in the same way that it is both trivial and meaningless for me to call someone's apple tree a failure for not growing the colour of apples that I happen to like.

by gloob 17y ago

antonovka 17y ago

Yes, but this doesn't mean that the GPL is a success -- rather, the software has succeeded on its own merit in spite of the downsides of the GPL. In contrast, there are numerous examples where potential software success has been restricted by the limitations of the GPL.

gloob 17y ago
I don't really disagree...except that fulfilling "potential software success" isn't the point of the GPL. The point of the GPL is to propagate Stallman's "Four Freedoms", and anything/everything else really is tangential to the issue. Whether or not the license has held back companies, or individual developers, or the evolution of software development as a whole isn't really the primary concern of those who use or support the use of the GPL. From that perspective, what you refer to as "the downsides of the GPL" really aren't downsides, any more than an apple being green instead of red is a "downside". The point of the apple is to be eaten; colour is more or less irrelevant. The point of the GPL is to make certain a specific ethical belief is followed and transmitted; whether that ideology is convenient or not for others is secondary at best. Calling the license a "failure" from a viewpoint completely different than the one it was created by is trivial and meaningless, in the same way that it is both trivial and meaningless for me to call someone's apple tree a failure for not growing the colour of apples that I happen to like.