advertisement

Weblog:   Open Source, Innovation, and IP
Subject:   why GPL?
Date:   2005-02-09 04:27:36
From:   jwenting
GPL is destructive. If you were talking more rational licensing schemes like the APL you might have some success.


I'd never use any GPL code, as I am diametrically opposed to the license forcing me into using it for my own code.
I do use APL code and have contributed some under it, might do more in the future.
Main Topics Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.

  • Nat Torkington photo Re: why GPL?
    2005-02-09 09:59:48  Nat Torkington | O'Reilly AuthorO'Reilly Blogger [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
Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.