You are rejecting GPL licences because companies may use the software but not give back while pretending not using them right?

I saw the opposite on my internship and right now. Dusing my internship the company wanted to conform itself to the lib licences it was using.
The approach was to conform to all of this licences and if a GPL was discover, either purchase a commercial licence if possible, or remove it entierely.
They may post - 1/2

issues but I think they never submitted patches.

And now I'm working for clients who stay on Qt 5.5 because they do not want to pay for licences. So they use a very outdated version, without giving anything back: no code, no money, no patch.
But if Qt wasn't LGPL / BSD / … at the time they may never have use it from the start, or the paid to have the enterprise license directly. @RMW - 2/2

@Zykino I am not against GPL and even find it great. I just don't think that it is always the right license.

I believe that you will get more commits and support without the GPL. Closed source things can't use it, so why would they commit? In other words, you lose possible contributors.

@RMW I agree that depending on your aim choosing something else than GPL could be the right option. (even GNU sometimes use/recommend Apache2.0 gnu.org/licenses/license-recom)

But I’m not sure "hoping to get more contributions" is a valid motivation considering the "harm" you are doing to FLOSS by giving proprietary software the same ability to use hour code.

I personnally prefer the GAFAM to not use my code and keep my lib smaller than take their contributions.

I don't see it as harm. You have to survive. It is hard to make something popular if you don't give others the chance to use it.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Linux Geeks doing what Linux Geeks do..