|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 02:47 PM EST |
No, there is definitely also happening BSD-style development. And a university
which has worked from public funding would likely have legal problems with a
"selfish" (reciprocate) license like the GPL.
It is, however, interesting to see that more often than not, the resulting
communities trying to keep a focused BSD-licensed product together are _much_
more fanatic than the corresponding, larger GPL crowd.
People not wanting to think too much about license choice tend to pick GPL
rather than BSD (or some home-brewn license which more often than not is
inconsistent enough to actually give no permission at all).
In some manner, the GPL seems to have become the "no-brainer" choice,
which is exactly opposite to the actual license complexity.
Which probably means that people _trust_ the license to be a good choice,
without investing all the work necessary to persuade themselves personally.
Which shows the making of a community or congregation. What has persuaded
people to join? Tricky question.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 06:45 PM EST |
For the companies who tout BSD-style licenses as "business-
friendly" - has anyone here seen these companies release
their *own* code under BSD-style licenses? I doubt it.
This all blatantly self-serving. These folks are basically
saying:
1. If it's your code we are talking about, the most fair
and friendly license is the one that lets me do whatever I
want with it without compensating you or letting you have
any say in it.
2. If it's my code we are talking about, the most fair and
friendly license is the one which maintains my total control
and prohibits you from doing anything.
3. If you object to #1 and #2, you are a "religious" wacko
with no common sense.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|