In gnu.misc.discuss Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said: > > 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.
The choose non-GPL alternatives because they want their software not to be free, unlike the libraries they use. > In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in > terms of getting code open sourced. But history says otherwise. For example, there's a lot of code in gcc that is there because the customer was told that if they wanted their gcc extension (custom back-end, front-end changes, etc) they'd have to release it under the GPL. > I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic > means of ensuring maximal adoption. Ironically, the FSF understood > this dynamic which is why they created the Library GPL, now known as > the Lesser GPL. There's nothing ironic about it. The FSF seeks to maximize freedom, so licenses code whichever way works best. Libraries sometimes have different needs from applications. Andrew. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
