[baq]

If you worked at a megacorp you’d know they care a whole lot about not allowing GPL code anywhere near their propertiary repos; this is usually enforced by IT security (NOT engineering) with dedicated scanners, confirmed matches are at least highest priority bugs.

[mvdtnz]

Not just mega corps. Everywhere I've worked for the past 10+ years treats GPL code like leprosy. You just don't go anywhere near it for any reason. It's the first thing you look for when taking on a new external dependency.

[mickael-kerjean]

Everywhere I've worked for the past 10+ years treats open source like a candy store to benefit from and wouldn't allow contributing code back

[matheusmoreira]

https://web.archive.org/web/20120620103603/http://zedshaw.co...

> Why I (A/L)GPL

> I want people to appreciate the work I’ve done and the value of what I’ve made.

> Not pass on by waving “sucker” as they drive their fancy cars.

Always choose AGPLv3 no matter what it is you're doing. If they want it, AGPLv3 gives you the leverage to negotiate a licensing deal. You sell them permission to violate it. I even emailed Stallman asking what he thought of this strategy. He thinks it's a net good.

[pabs3]

Depends on the terms of the deal, I would want to at minimum get back any modifications they are making.

[matheusmoreira]

It's your work. Negotiate any terms you want. Extract as many benefits as you can get away with. If they accept it, you win. If they don't, they gotta abide by the AGPLv3 and everyone wins.

[trelane]

Yeah, giving massive corporations a free ride has been incredibly successful for corporations. For their users not so much.

[LtWorf]

There's a megacorp using my GPL library internally. They've even blogged about it.