Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.

• Re: why GPL?
  2005-02-09 09:59:48  Nat Torkington | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I've been thinking about the GPL lately, and whether its tough line on derivatives has been what's made it possible for Linux to become the common platform for competing vendors like HP, IBM, RedHat, etc. A more permissive license, it seems to me, would have let companies keep bits of their contributions closed source as a proprietary edge. I think that strategy wouldn't work in the long term, but the GPL rules it out entirely--it compels good citizenship rather than simply expecting it.
  That's not to say that other licences (APL, Mozilla, BSD, whatever) aren't good--anything that opens source for others to use is good. I'm just coming to think that perhaps the GPL is a sharp edge, and that there are times when we need sharp blades. There are also times when we don't need sharp blades; I'm not saying the GPL is a universal good, only that it seems to have unique benefits in particular situations.
  
  --Nat
• Re: why GPL?
  2005-02-10 00:18:42  jwenting [Reply | View]
  
  
  Those companies don't extend or use those GPL'd products in their own products (at least not at the scale you seem to think).
  
  They may sell Linux distributions, but their own versions with large amounts of custom (non-GPL, often not OS) products added in.
  
  GPL effectively makes it impossible to ever make a dime of your work, except if you happen to be lucky enough to get a support contract (instead of the person downloading it for free just downloading it for free and asking his hacker friend to help him).
  
  
  GPL isn't a sharp blade, it's a blunt axe.