4 ms·
From what I have witnessed in industry: It would probably be immensely helpful if the GPL software developers who were open to alternate licensing schemes expl
by tjr 11y ago
From what I have witnessed in industry:
It would probably be immensely helpful if the GPL software developers who were open to alternate licensing schemes explicitly said so on their web pages. Otherwise the only licensing option listed for their software is GPL.
It's a minor point, granted, but I think it would make a difference.
EDIT: e.g., a statement like, This software is licensed to the public under GPLv3. If you would like to use this software under different licensing terms, please email us / review our price sheet / etc.
- dalke 11y agoBut isn't that true of nearly every other license and vendor? Which developers are open to relicensing their proprietary software under the GPL, and if so, for how much? If the price is right, then perhaps enough people will contribute and free the software, which could also make a difference.
- tjr 11y agoSure, well, I wrote that in the context of, if any GPL software developers want their software to be used more in a non-copyleft setting and are willing to negotiate a difference license. It very well could work both ways; some proprietary software developer would likely be willing to release their software as GPL if paid enough money, since, ostensibly, the proprietary license was chosen to help make money in the first place. I can imagine that some proprietary software developers choose proprietary licensing for some other reason, but I suspect it's mostly the default for anyone looking to charge for copies.