undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnu11ptr11mo ago0 comments

One should choose a license that fits them. The problem with GPL licenses is they are viral and non-permissive. As a developer, as soon as I see the GPL I just click away to another repo no matter how good the lib is. I don't want people doing that to my projects, so I use Apache/MIT or whatever the permissive license that is most prominent for the language I'm using.

0 comments

pama11mo ago

One could argue that GPL is very permissive. If you need to use it in a proprietary way in your own company for internal purposes, no problem; if you release software that others use, you have to release the code as well. I dont want to be using black boxes in this day and age.

nu11ptrOP11mo ago

Permissiveness is relative, so in relation to MIT/BSD/Apache, it is not.

pama11mo ago

As a user of code I feel it is more permissive to me to see the code. As a licenser of code I want what is best for me and for others as a user and future developer. Others are free to do anything as long as they dont remove the license and the modified code if they release a software.

If one wanted a different linguistic of pseudo philosophical spin, one could argue that a society would be more permissive than ours in a similar sense that MIT is more permissive than GNU, if it allowed free killing of random people for no reason. Nobody wants to live in such a society and it would not develop as fast as our society. I want to live in a society that permits collaboration, editing, and modification of software I use under the guarantee of the license.

1 more reply

krupan11mo ago

Hi! Do you work for Microsoft? There is nothing "non-permissive" about the GPL. You can use the code however you want. "Viral" is a perjorative description that Microsoft pioneered the use of to describe the GPL. The GPL is not a virus that latches onto any code it gets near, without anyone's permission. You should not use that term.

nu11ptrOP11mo ago

> The GPL is not a virus that latches onto any code it gets near

Honestly, that is EXACTLY how I feel about it. If I use GPL code in my code then my code must also be GPL (if I distribute). The term seems to fit to me.

And no, I've never worked for MS.

krupan11mo ago

Viruses are things that latch onto other things without their permission. If you choose to build off of GPL code then yes, you must preserve the GPL license. There's an important difference.

It's actually the same as any other copyrighted code (and in the US, all code is automatically copyrighted and restricted). You cannot just take code and use it in your project. GPL code is nothing special.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

pama11mo ago

nu11ptrOP11mo ago

Permissiveness is relative, so in relation to MIT/BSD/Apache, it is not.

pama11mo ago

1 more reply

krupan11mo ago

nu11ptrOP11mo ago

> The GPL is not a virus that latches onto any code it gets near

Honestly, that is EXACTLY how I feel about it. If I use GPL code in my code then my code must also be GPL (if I distribute). The term seems to fit to me.

And no, I've never worked for MS.

krupan11mo ago

Viruses are things that latch onto other things without their permission. If you choose to build off of GPL code then yes, you must preserve the GPL license. There's an important difference.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse