On 02/29/2016 02:12 AM, J.B. Nicholson wrote: > So I'd bet other proprietors are in a similar position: they don't mind the > GPL when they're the copyright holder and they can't effectively relicense > a GPL'd program without competing against their own code. But they complain > when they're the licensee (such as GitHub's Tom Preston-Werner claiming the > GPL is "too restrictive"[2] while the GPL apparently didn't stop him and > others from building a lucrative business around git, which is licensed > under the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1).
Well, that's not true for all companies: Google outright bans the AGPL even for their own products. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source_licenses/ Also, most GPL violations happen because of Android, a Google product. Github is likely the one to blame for most free software shifting to lax licenses: https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/282759/6517300/9dc14536-c367-11e4-9a63-b23a3d75af78.png As well as poorly educating people about licenses so much, many people are actually not including any licensing info, making their projects proprietary: https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/282759/6517301/9dc26d44-c367-11e4-9eca-2e99e7c92387.png
