3 ms·
For the example you gave in response to my first reply the GPL license would have permitted them to do as they please. No-one forces a license on you, you choos
by indlebe 11y ago
For the example you gave in response to my first reply the GPL license would have permitted them to do as they please. No-one forces a license on you, you choose what license your original code is under. If I would like to prevent my code from being taken and profited from that's also my right. The fact that you can choose what license your code is under is freedom. The non-permissive vs permissive license argument is a moot point, because the very arguments supporting permissive also support the right to use a license such as GPL.
- err4nt 11y agoThe GPL has a viral clause that says that whatever code touches GPLed code must be GPLed as well. This is a deal-breaker for many people who may be working with code under different licenses without similar viral clauses already in their codebase. They don't necessarily have the right to GPL other people's code, so they have to forgo using the GPLed code. It's not just the GPL, this criticism applies to any licence with a viral clause. I understand that as an author I have copyright and ultimate freedom to licence my code under whatever I choose, but I choose to release my code under non-viral terms. It's not about posting changes back, I don't care if they fork it and run I just want people to use it. I see viral terms a huge roadblock to this type of creativity. So there's a solid argument for permissive licenses that excludes viral licenses like the GPL!