[coldtea]

>Being licensed under the GPL is an essential part of the GNU project and their philosophy.

Having "won the desktop from Windows" and "finished a next-gen OS (Hurd)" was also part of that plan, but it didn't really pan out, did it?

I'm glad for MIT software since I can use it in more places I can use GPL (which companies often wont touch, in it's later license version).

[AlchemistCamp]

Do the places you work forbid the use of Linux or the GNU Coreutils?

In what context are you using Rust Coreutils? Windows? MacOS? BSD?

[coldtea]

>Do the places you work forbid the use of Linux or the GNU Coreutils?

They allow them. I had cases where clients forbade some GPL code (banks, etc) - worse with GPL3.

[wizzwizz4]

They'll stop doing that if most code is GPLv3. If most code is GPLv3, we're all better off – but while people are still prepared to work around GPL-rejecting companies, those companies can still reject the GPL.

It's the tragedy of the Commons.

[ben_bai]

The GPL license usage is falling, and even Linux is GPLv2 and rejects GPLv3. Some Linux code is dual licenses GPLv2 and MIT.

ApacheV2, MPL, MIT, ISC and BSD licenses are gaining in popularity.

[coldtea]

>They'll stop doing that if most code is GPLv3

No, they'll just find a MIT/BSD or probably proprietary alternative.

[AlchemistCamp]

From a legal perspective, what is the advantage in a proprietary alternative?

[coldtea]

E.g. they don't get to sue you for using it and not opening your own software that links to it, since you can buy a license allowing you to do just that.

That's also why some GPL software is dual licensed. GPL for the masses, and a proprietary license allowing you to do whatever without needing to follow the GPL if you can afford it.

[raegis]

Do they forbid using the code, or incorporating the code into their own works? I hear of places forbidding the use of GPL code (even in-house) where they use proprietary software like Microsoft Word with no worries.

[ben_bai]

Because Microsoft doesn't demand you open source your plugins. GNU software might force you to.

Corporations choosing to not use GPL software mostly don't know enough about it, to know it's ok. So they ban it outright.

[teddyh]

> GNU software might force you to.

No, they might not. Just like Microsoft, they might demand that you don’t release your plugins. Addidionaly, GNU software gives you the alternative of releasing your plugins. But you don’t have to, and they can’t make you do it.