|
|
|
|
|
by fermienrico
2757 days ago
|
|
I like the spirit of open source but every time I see GPL, I feel like it is an evil license that tries to consume everything it touches - even the stuff it has absolutely no rights for. That is not the spirit of open source. It has caused ages of headaches, law firms getting rich and unintentional business losses. How about a license that says "You cannot use it for any commercial use or closed source projects" so then at least it doesn't claim rights to the rest of the source code. GPL goes a notch beyond and claims rights to proprietary code that so that community can enjoy the fruits of labor at the expense of a small set of people developed without anything to return. Copy-left licenses are overarching evil in my view. |
|
What I generally do is release source code of my program as public domain, even if it links with GPL libraries (it will be GPL if I am modifying an existing GPL program though), although require that the combination is GPL even though the files that are entirely my own writing will be public domain. To distribute the combination or binaries requires distributing according to GPL. Since public domain software with source code is compatible with GPL, this is probably allowed, as long as the combination with the GPL libraries are GPL. (Since I do not generally release binaries, and rather release them as public domain source code, therefore it is probably allowed.)
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMone... [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CombinePublicDomain...