3 ms·

I dunno. I used to feel this way, even feeling that the GPL had outlived its usefulness, but I have had a change of heart in the last decade or so. I think th

I dunno. I used to feel this way, even feeling that the GPL had outlived its usefulness, but I have had a change of heart in the last decade or so. I think the GPL might be the only hope for long-lived software that serves the interests of its users. I hope that programmers who sneer at the impracticality of the GPL and RMS's zealousness can take another pass at appreciating it, when you think about what its implications might be for a project thirty years in the future.

mark_l_watson 12y ago
Thanks, I could not agree with you more. Last year I released something under the GPL, and when a few potential users complained I wimped out and switched licenses. I think that I made a mistake doing that. I am working on something else interesting and I plan on sticking with the GPL, even though my project is for Pharo Smalltalk and I think GPL use for Smalltalk projects is rare. I think that in the distant future we will see very old, very well tested software that changes only slowly. I would like to see that software using GPL or AGPL.
- wolfgke 12y ago
  > Last year I released something under the GPL, and when a few potential users complained I wimped out and switched licenses. I think that I made a mistake doing that. If it's your own code, you can change licenses back (say, for the next version) if you want to.
  - eli 12y ago
    Only if you wrote 100% of it or got other contributors to sign over their copyrights. (right?)
    - wolfgke 12y ago
      "it's your own code" is a special case of this.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      If their contributions were licensed to him suitable for inclusion in a project released under a permissive (and GPL compatible, but most are) license, then he could relicense his code and thereby effectively relicense the project. People could, in principle, isolate the BSD (or whatnot) portions and use them in other projects, but that's probably only relevant if it's a significant portion of the code.
  - mark_l_watson 12y ago
    Thanks for the suggestion, that is exactly what I did.

mark_l_watson 12y ago

Thanks, I could not agree with you more. Last year I released something under the GPL, and when a few potential users complained I wimped out and switched licenses. I think that I made a mistake doing that. I am working on something else interesting and I plan on sticking with the GPL, even though my project is for Pharo Smalltalk and I think GPL use for Smalltalk projects is rare. I think that in the distant future we will see very old, very well tested software that changes only slowly. I would like to see that software using GPL or AGPL.

wolfgke 12y ago
> Last year I released something under the GPL, and when a few potential users complained I wimped out and switched licenses. I think that I made a mistake doing that. If it's your own code, you can change licenses back (say, for the next version) if you want to.
- eli 12y ago
  Only if you wrote 100% of it or got other contributors to sign over their copyrights. (right?)
  - wolfgke 12y ago
    "it's your own code" is a special case of this.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    If their contributions were licensed to him suitable for inclusion in a project released under a permissive (and GPL compatible, but most are) license, then he could relicense his code and thereby effectively relicense the project. People could, in principle, isolate the BSD (or whatnot) portions and use them in other projects, but that's probably only relevant if it's a significant portion of the code.
- mark_l_watson 12y ago
  Thanks for the suggestion, that is exactly what I did.