On 29/02/16 10:02, Fabio Pesari wrote: > 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 >
Back to the theme of making the rebuttals conversational, another good one could be: "Companies don't like the GPL" "Isn't that a good sign that the GPL is good for you as a user of technology? Would you really expect companies to like a license that gives you choice and control?"
