On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:


And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me?

Not only am I not imposing anything on you, I've already offered to pay you for a commercial license. So you can have your cake (GPL licensing) and eat it too (paid commercial licensing).

My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many commercial developers, and therefore whenever possible, they choose non-GPL alternatives.

In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in terms of getting code open sourced. Users who need to keep their source closed either won't use it, or will use in in a way that allows them not to open the source (e.g., Paul Graham's viaweb and their use of the GPL CLISP).

Meanwhile, users of LLGPL or BSD, etc. licensed code frequently open source whatever they are able as contributions back to the relevant project. Giving users the choice of what they will and won't open source results in more users, and just as many open source contributions.

More use means the library is more of a community standard, more contributors, more bug fixes, more extensions, more additions, etc. And non-GPL license authors can still sell support (e.g., priorty for bugfixes or priority for adding new features, etc. - The Clozure folks did this for their IDE, and Clozure is LLGPL licensed).

I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic means of ensuring maximal adoption. Ironically, the FSF understood this dynamic which is why they created the Library GPL, now known as the Lesser GPL.

warmest regards,


Raffael Cavallaro

gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to