Originally posted by ryao
View Post
If you want my personal preferences regarding licences as a data point, I recently summarised them in another post here and are as follows:
Yes, but the main draw with GPL for developers is that they, as 'recipients' are entitled to enhancements made to their code. This practical advantage is in my opinion the BIG reason why GPL is the most used licence by far, rather than the ideological stance it takes.
I think it also makes a great licence for companies who wants to cooperate with open source on a legally binding even playfield, the large amount of full-time developers paid by companies to work on Linux seems to support my thesis.
On the other hand if you do not want/need/expect any help with developing a piece of software (either because it's 'done' or you have the resources to take it anywhere you want without help) then I think BSD/MIT style licencing is much more appropriate.
Also, some type of software is better suited for certain licences I think, something which is developed as a whole is better suited for GPL than framework/component style code which is better off in a practical sense when licenced permissively or LGPL style.
I think it also makes a great licence for companies who wants to cooperate with open source on a legally binding even playfield, the large amount of full-time developers paid by companies to work on Linux seems to support my thesis.
On the other hand if you do not want/need/expect any help with developing a piece of software (either because it's 'done' or you have the resources to take it anywhere you want without help) then I think BSD/MIT style licencing is much more appropriate.
Also, some type of software is better suited for certain licences I think, something which is developed as a whole is better suited for GPL than framework/component style code which is better off in a practical sense when licenced permissively or LGPL style.
Leave a comment: