4 ms·
The argument in the article is wrong. The assumption is that companies want to extend the software and keep their extensions "locked down." That does happen,
by maxlybbert 11y ago
The argument in the article is wrong. The assumption is that companies want to extend the software and keep their extensions "locked down." That does happen, but I have seen companies willing to extend software, and make the extension public, as long as they didn't have to make the extension GPL.
Whether this makes sense, or is a case of failure to understand the GPL, it does exist.
- liviu- 11y ago>The argument in the article is wrong. The assumption is that companies want to extend the software and keep their extensions "locked down." I think that's by far the most common use case for avoiding GPL though.
- ubernostrum 11y agoI think that is commonly assumed to be the most common use case for avoiding GPL. I have no idea whether that is actually the most common use case for avoiding GPL, and I don't know of anyone who's actually done the research on that in a useful way.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago> The assumption is that companies want to extend the software and keep their extensions "locked down." That does happen, but I have seen companies willing to extend software, and make the extension public, as long as they didn't have to make the extension GPL. ...so? The point is that the GPL makes it illegal to lock down, while MIT and the like enable it. Yes, some companies will play nice, but they are doing so voluntarily.
- maxlybbert 11y agoThe solution to "companies are evil and want to horde my code" is very different from the solution to "companies don't like the GPL; perhaps because they don't understand it, perhaps because they don't like the implicit patent license that may include any patents the company has a cross license to and doesn't have the ability to sublicense."