Hacker News Reader

Comment by npsimons | Hacker News Reader

The reason is that most companies that use ruby or python libraries are totally happy to contribute back patches and be part of the open source ecosystem,

Then they should have absolutely no problem with the GPL.

but releasing something as GPL makes that impossible

Please explain how requiring distributors to include access to source code makes it impossible to contribute source code.

View on HN

They are happy to contribute back the patches of a GPL library, but they don't want to open source their entire product just because it links a GPL library.

Because unless a software company is specifically structured to not make money off its source code, giving that away is pretty much the dumbest thing they can do. So when they want to build something and are evaluating options, if there is an MIT library that will get them most of the way, they will use it. If there is a commercial library that will get them most of the way, they will use it. If there is a GPL library, it doesn't matter how good it is, they will not use it and instead build their own thing from scratch.

I realize this website penalizes people for pointing out the obvious but I have to ask you, did you even read what you responded to because what you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with the question the GP asked. Getting your talking points in is one thing but at least try to put it in context.

>>>but releasing something as GPL makes that impossible >>Please explain how requiring distributors to include access to source code makes it impossible to contribute source code. > (me talking about how the requirement to distribute their source code will make companies not contribute to opensource)

how is that out of context?

Easy, especially with GPLv3 you now have patents issues to contend with. That makes the entire process burdensome and expensive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com