4 ms·
In a sense this is just the result of competition. As a chooser of software to integrate given two equivalent options one being GPL and the other Apache/BSD/MIT
by fidotron 12y ago
In a sense this is just the result of competition. As a chooser of software to integrate given two equivalent options one being GPL and the other Apache/BSD/MIT only the GPL idealist goes with GPL.
GPL works well for the creators of projects, but not so well for programmers-as-consumers. As a result any open source software project looking to gain traction with the developer community will gain an advantage from a more permissive license.
- dalke 12y agoYou used a argument grounded in a certain view of economics. The GPL argument is that economics is the wrong starting point. The GPL is meant as a form of social good, for the people-as-users of software to be in control of what they have. Using an economics argument means you start with the premise that the GPL rejects, so of course you'll consider the GPL to be on the wrong footing. You might consider the GPL more in line with Right to Repair bill in Massachusetts, which requires automobile manufacturers to provide the same information to independent repair shops as they do for dealer shops. (Obviously 86% of the state who supported the initiative were idealists. :)