Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes:
> On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said: > >> Sure. >> >> And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me? > > My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements > regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many > commercial developers, and therefore whenever possible, they choose > non-GPL alternatives. That's perfectly fine since what makes the source code unpopular with the commercial developers also stops them from contributing back. So there is no loss. > In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in > terms of getting code open sourced. Users who need to keep their > source closed either won't use it, or will use in in a way that allows > them not to open the source (e.g., Paul Graham's viaweb and their use > of the GPL CLISP). It does not get you "anything additional", but it gets you something _less_: a proprietary product that uses your own code to draw your user base away from you. > Meanwhile, users of LLGPL or BSD, etc. licensed code frequently open > source whatever they are able as contributions back to the relevant > project. Giving users the choice of what they will and won't open > source results in more users, and just as many open source > contributions. The real world tends to disagree by example. Yes, I'd prefer a world in which Richard Stallman was pretty much wrong about everything, too. But one has to make the best from what one actually got. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
