On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Laurent Bercot <ska-dietl...@skarnet.org> wrote: >> Some of the arguments from the "other side" found in that >> thread make sense. We are possibly a bit too aggressive >> when we try to force people to comply with GPL >> on other projects too, not only on bbox. > > Good quality alternatives are a good thing. If Rob starts his > Toybox project again, more power to him. If users - whether they > are individuals or companies - can choose between two similar > implementations of the same stuff, everyone benefits. > > The unfortunate reality is that most companies *really don't want* > to release their source code. They will either refuse to have > anything to do with copylefted software, or infringe the copyleft > more or less blatantly. The "return something to the community" > idea just does not work with them.
Companies want to do what companies want to do. If a license really tries to make them do something they don't want to, then they won't use the software. Period. I think that's a mistake many 'free software' advocates make is that a license would somehow make companies be good community members. That's not the case. If Sony doesn't want to contribute, that's probably a mistake, but they are free to make that mistake, and they would do it regardless of what Matthew Garrett says. > So, GPL inforcement is a good thing, but as time goes by, companies > will turn away more and more from copylefted software, and use more > and more open source, non copylefted software. I am afraid that the > uncompromising, unforgiving nature of the GPL will turn against it > in the future, and harm more than promote widespread distribution of > GPL'ed software - something that GPL zealots generally refuse to see. Totally agree. But GPLv3, not GPLv2, or even better LGPL, which seems to be fine. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox