| I think you and I are wasting time. You care about making things easier for software users. Software users don't make more software; software authors do. Actually, I think "users" should pay for software as that's all they're able to contribute, and I don't think that the GPL dual-licensing model users by some enterprise vendors can actually work for most consumer software. If I produce developer-oriented software that's outside of our core business -- but perhaps enables our core business -- I am very likely to release it under the MIT/BSD license to help aid in wide adoption and external contribution from funding business interests. If I produce software that is our core business, then I won't MIT/BSD license it. I might GPL it, but only if there's a clear value (ie, leveraging the 'open source' name, aiding in widespread adoption by hobbyists while targeting enterprise users, etc) in doing so. The business benefits of the GPL are so compelling that I don't think they need my cheerleading. The benefits are only compelling for --some-- business models. And this doesn't disprove the author's point. As for other business models, especially around commoditized software, the BSD license often provides the most compelling business benefits as corporates are free to pool resources on code they are free to link against without having to release the entirety of their products under a copyleft license. |