GPL Discussion

[Jabberwocky]

Edit (by eXpl0it3r): Split the topic from here.

GPL is a bad license, as it infects the whole project. 
If someone uses your library, then their entire codebase must also become GPL, which pretty much nobody wants to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works

[Jesper Juhl]

Bullshit.
Whether or not a licence is good or bad is a very subjective opinion.
It is the prerogative of every code author to choose the licence for their code that they feel best matches their wishes for how the code is used.
It's not your place to say that the GPL v2 is a bad licence on anyones behalf. You can only say that as far as it pertains to your own code.

[Jabberwocky]

Heh, fair enough Jesper, although not delivered with the most tact. 

Let me clarify then.

This license is bad for anyone who doesn't wish to release their entire project as open source.  There's nothing subjective about that, and it applies to a lot more people than just me (in fact, probably most).  I just wanted to make sure Mj PsykOo was aware of this.

By the way, looks great Mj PsykOo!  I should have written that in my first post.

[Laurent]

Even with the proper context, you can't say it is bad. It's at most not suitable for one's needs.

But anyway, can we please have a post mentioning the GPL license without starting a war against it?

Thank you.

[Jesper Juhl]

Heh, fair enough Jesper, although not delivered with the most tact. 

I don't care about tact, I only do facts.

This license is bad for anyone who doesn't wish to release their entire project as open source.  I just wanted to make sure Mj PsykOo was aware of this.

As soon as you release any code to the world you need to think about the terms/license you do so under. Why is this notable/special? It is something you always need to consider - quite important actualy.

Edit: Laurent: no war on gpl from here.

[Jabberwocky]

Even with the proper context, you can't say it is bad. It's at most not suitable for one's needs.

Alright.  It's not suitable for one's needs, in the same way a canteen filled with sand isn't suitable to a man dying of thirst in the desert.  If we don't want to call that canteen "bad" for the dying man, so be it! 

But point taken - no more argument on GPL.  I've said my piece and of course an author has full right to choose whatever license she likes.

[FRex]

I don't care about tact, I only do facts.

The facts are that GNU/FSF itself says that LGPL is better than GPL if library's features are available in other non-GPL libraries already.

It's at most not suitable for one's needs.

It's not suitable for this library (because lighting stuff is dime a dozen already), according to GNU/FSF itself, but what do they know about GPL... right?

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html

[eXpl0it3r]

Those who didn't notice, the topic has been split from the original thread.

Saying that something is bad, is in mostly all cases rather subjective, as such there's no need to call bullshit on things and a normal and less loaded answer would've worked fine as well.

Besides I think it's important to point out the limitation GPL can bring up onto your code and even more importantly the code of those, who'd like to use your library. Since licensing is not a trivial topic, it's common that many don't really understand the implications of their choice in a license.

Additionally as pointed out, LGPL is a lot better suited for such libraries.

[FRex]

Additionally as pointed out, LGPL is a lot better suited for libraries.

Even GNOME and KDE (the two arguably biggest/oldest open source DEs) do LGPL libs + GPL apps, not GPL everything.

It's not your place to say that the GPL v2 is a bad licence on anyones behalf.

FSF itself thought it's too weak to protect what it's supposed to after tivoization issue and stepped it up with incompatible GPLv3.

[Xafi]

http://www.wtfpl.net/about/