Hi! > And is also infeasible. For a web service. GPL is effectively weak > copyleft already; I think that's quite weak enough. (As I noted, there > is no actual evidence that permissive licenses secure more
This is very plausible, as the decision to contribute is rarely driven by the license as a primary factor - you don't say "here's random GPL-licensed project, I don't know anything about its domain, language, goals, community, status or needs, but I feel compelled to contribute because it's GPL!" - or at least, most people won't say that. As long as the license is not completely un-acceptable, I would assume other factors would dominate such decision. However, I know cases where I personally had to write code or otherwise work around GPL libraries because of license incompatibility with other open-source projects. That, of course, can be also counted as "more contributions" but I don't think that's what you meant :) > contributions than copyleft, and some evidence the other way; despite Out of curiosity, what evidence you mean? > fans of permissive licenses repeating the claims ad nauseam over the > last fifteen years, they're notably short on examples.) You must already know examples of successful projects under permissive licenses. So you probably seeking the examples of why permissive license solicits _more_ contributions that if the same project was under GPL. Such example would require a rather rare occurrence of a project changing the license while at mature stage and measuring the contributions before and after the license change, otherwise we'd be comparing apples to oranges. My personal opinion is, as I described above, that license doesn't matter too much provided it's not unacceptably restrictive. Thus, for me looking for such examples would be a waste of time :) -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
