I prefer Apache 2.0, as who knows where chunks of code end up 10 years from now.
If you are able, than its good karma to support the community with your own development hours and or fiscal donations. =)
You are correct in that Bezos does little for the community, and AWS tends to repackage community projects. Yet, most firms do put in many paid hours on kernel development etc.
Have a wonderful day =)
Linux kernel uses GPL.
Have a great day =)
Nothing in the GPL requires this, only distributing sources down to your users, who may or may not then redistribute the sources back upstream.
The project contamination happens even with the LGPL.
The subject was contaminating licenses, and why they are not appropriate in some situations. Cheers =)
GPL (ie. Copyleft) guarantees "open source" for _users_ of the software
Apache (ie. permissive) gives source code to _developers_.
One may be surprised by having faith in peoples goodwill. =)
Most of my code, being I usually just make python wrappers around C/C++ libraries I want to play with, retains whatever license the original library uses. That’s the license they want, that’s the license I follow.
The rare occasion I actually put up original code on GitHub (not really sure I’ve ever done that though, I have a bad yak shaving addiction…would have to check so “theoretically”) I just use a BSD license because I don’t care — some jurisdictions require a license, that the most free one and I’d be happy if someone used my code for whatever.
I also like the LGPL or wxWidgets licenses, as it encourages professional linux application development/ports. (Qt5 was an example of doing things wrong in my opinion.)
I agree it is a personal choice, and I like giving people more freedom to build.
The punitive culture around GPLv3 is especially unsavory. =)
I never inferred other people should choose a specific license, but rather stated the fact GPL can contaminate large bodies of work completely unrelated to community projects (mostly v3 I take issue with). The state of Steam game compatibility is a demonstration of the conflicting use-cases hobbling a platforms potential.
In my opinion LGPL is better for libraries as if you modify lib source it obligates community participation, but doesn't force your entire project into public view when a linker touches the wrong GPL lib.
We can disagree, and from each perspective believe we are correct. I'll stick with Apache 2.0, as its better suited for my projects.
Enhance your calm. =)
Nothing in the GPL/LGPL requires this, only distributing sources down to your users, who may or may not then redistribute the sources back upstream to the community.
The project contamination happens even with the LGPL.
The subject was contaminating licenses, and why they are not appropriate in some situations. Cheers =)
Sure, I was just pointing out a misconception in your understanding of these licenses. They only require distributing downstream to your users, not back to the upstream community.
I go by the lawyers consensus, not some opinion on the internet from some unknown region of the world. Note, the user-base doesn't care, they only want a program to work on their platform. Some upstream publishers on the other hand can be disrespectful at times, as some can assume the worst... it usually has nothing to do with the FOSS foundations themselves.
Thanks for your opinion though, it is good to see people still interested in community projects. Happy computing, =)
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...
Some people are way more aggressive than the foundation. QED =)
I rather people have unrestricted development options, and not feel like they entered a Faustian bargain. Its a personal choice, but I have only been coding since 1993… so probably don’t know any better. lol =)
Except, there’s nothing forcing someone to take a GPL’d library and integrate it into their application.
If you don’t like the license don’t use the code and later whine about “punitive” actions taken against you.
At this point there’s no excuse for not knowing that the GPL is very restrictive and the code isn’t free-for-all. No excuse except maybe they think they won’t get caught by including some reverse-engineering clause in their TOS so people can’t find out. That worked out pretty well for these folks, no?
My point was, I personally don't want to inflict my own idealism on people 10 years from now, that will be doing something completely unpredictable. =)