[zimpenfish]

> The original stance of the open source crowd was more along the lines of the GPL -> GPLv3 -> AGPL, which expressly prevents this kind of thing.

Not wanting to further widen the schism but wasn't that the free software people rather than the open source people? cf [0], particularly the "not as strict" part.

> In the late 1990's Eric Raymond and others developed the term "open source" as a more business friendly term than "free software", with a more inclusive meaning where licenses that were not as strict about the passing on of modifications would also quality for the term.

[0] https://www.freeopensourcesoftware.org/index.php?title=Eric_...

[anikom15]

No, open source was definitely more leaning toward the GPLv2 than the BSD-style licenses.

[apgwoz]

…until businesses decided that the GPLv2 was legally risky and businesses started to avoid it.

[graemep]

Software businesses. Other businesses do not care.

[anikom15]

This is FUD. Some businesses may have a policy of not using GPL software, but all the major enterprises, including Microsoft and Apple, use GPL software.

[apgwoz]

My comment wasn’t written with enough precision.

Using GPL software: yes. Totally fine. The rise of Linux and all that jazz.

Incorporating any part of GPL software _into_ other products? Pretty much doesn’t happen. Every company I’ve ever worked for has said “do not bring LGPL or GPL software into the codebase.” When it comes to commercial software, be it cloud based, or downloadable, you’re not going to find much that tries to incorporate GPL stuff. You just won’t.

[anikom15]

Of course proprietary software products aren’t going to bring in the GPL. They literally can’t.

[apgwoz]

They _literally_ could.

[hyperjeff]

Apple often goes to great lengths to avoid anything GPL.