On 22 April 2014 16:29, Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 22/04/14 07:57, Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> Yeah, I understand the license options essentially, but it's more than
>> just the license text, there are license cultures that affect the
>> decision, and people are borderline religious about this sort of
>> thing.
>> I mean, the GPL seems fine to me, but there are many people who see
>> GPL and avoid it like the plague as a matter of superstition or
>> something. I'd prefer to not discourage interest or contribution just
>> because I wrote "GPL" near my code.
>> Then people invented LGPL and in my experience, this makes some of
>> them feel okay with it, and others still don't wanna go near it.
>> What practical reasons are there to avoid GPL if your software is
>> fundamentally open-source?
>> Ideally, I'd like something like GPL, with the option that I can grant
>> someone an exception to the license upon request.
> If you want to use some library that is not GPL, or incompatible with GPL.
> Or the opposite. If someone wants to use your code, but not want to use GPL,
> but still an open source license. BSD, for example, is much more flexible in
> these cases.

But then you lose the incentive to return contribution back to the
original community.
I've worked in companies where we take OSS libraries, modified for our
needs, and never offer the modifications back to the community. I've
done it myself, and it's basically wrong.
I am not aware of the license that encourages community contribution,
but also doesn't infect your code like the plague?

Reply via email to