Although permissive licenses are great for libraries, they aren't that good for applications. Why would you let someone make a closed source version of your open source video editor? No, you never ever want that happens, that's when copyleft comes into play, it's ideal for applications like this.
> Although permissive licenses are great for libraries, they aren't that good for applications. Why would you let someone make a closed source version of your open source video editor?
Because you believe that open source actually works and is efficient in practice, such that even if someone makes and sells a proprietary derivative, it is more likely to grow the pie than to harm the open source base (and likely, if the downstream vendor is smart, to result in substantial contributions back to the core, because the downstream vendor can't get community maintenance to control costs without contributing stuff back to the community.)
Works for a variety of existing permissively licensed software for which their proprietary downstream versions, the sellers of which are also sponsors of and code contributors to the open source project.
Personally speaking: I think open source/permissive licensing works for libraries. I think it's been amply demonstrated that that doesn't work well at all for applications, and honestly that's the one place where I'll throw a bone to the free software folks.
> I think open source/permissive licensing works for libraries. I think it's been amply demonstrated that that doesn't work well at all for applications
PostgreSQL is an application, not a library. It is permissively licensed. It has at least one major proprietary downstream derivative that contributes back significantly to the core. Its usually recognized as a successful open source RDBMS.
Please explain to me how it is "amply demonstrated" that permissive licensing "doesn't work at all for applications"?
I am surprised that you would attempt to stretch the definition of "application", in the consumer-software context in which this discussion very obviously is, to server software.
> I am surprised that you would attempt to stretch the definition of "application", in the consumer-software context in which this discussion very obviously is, to server software.
I am still seeing a complete lack of support for the claim that it is "amply demonstrated" that permissive licensing "doesn't work at all for applications", even restricting "applications" to consumer applications.
OSX, Safari, apple never contributed back to the core
Windows used (Net?) BSD network stack
Google did not contribute much back to the linux kernel even though it's GPL though.
So many products/compagnies are using FFmpeg and not contributing back.
With that many risks already existing, it is safe to assume that most compagnies would not contribute back.
Besides, postgresql is not an application, no
Would Oracle have bought Mysql if it was BSD ? Probably not
How about Eclipse? I know non-programmers who use Bioclipse and Knime, just for example.
Maybe those aren't the greatest applications ever, but imagine what it might be like given a different upstream product with similarly permissive licensing?
> Why would you let someone make a closed source version of your open source video editor?
GPLv3 is a lot more restrictive than GPLv2 which is already restrictive.
Honestly, if had a GPLvX software and some guy came to me asking for a different license with the agreement that he would support it commercially I would be 100% ok with that (especially if he would agree to push bug fixes back to me - it would be a win-win for everyone).
How would that be any different than hiring a consultant to configure/support it in house? If you are using GPL software privately then you don't have to release the changes or the source. The only difference being is that if a whole company supported the one product they could have multiple people to work on it.
> Why would you let someone make a closed source version of your open source video editor?
How is that a bad thing? I think that's a zero sum game way of looking at it.
No damage is done if someone makes a closed source version. They can add value and stimulate competition. More often, they fail.
Occasionally, core developers may enrich and provide additional functionality upon a permissive core. Why not look at Postgres as an example?
And what harm is done? Lost code contributions? Some have no interest in collaborating on software they can't incorporate / copy from later without restriction. It takes time to wrap ones brain around a codebase.
Why would someone take time to understand the internals of a GPLv3 app, when they could never incorporate pieces of it in their code later on?
> it's ideal for applications like this.
Ideal is subjective. Judging by the above, it seems as if enforcing envy trumps programmers doing as they wish with the code.
> Why would someone take time to understand the internals of a GPLv3 app, when they could never incorporate pieces of it in their code later on?
...to make it better for their uses, rather than their products? "Enforcing envy," though--please, be more of a jerk.
I'm curious as to what large-scale applications have you developed and released under a permissive license that make you such an authority on what others should do with tens of thousands of their man-hours.
If there is no damage done when someone makes a closed source version, then there is no damage done when some pirates that closed source version. Some have no interest in paying for the closed sourced version anyway, and why should the closed source developer enforce his envy against users doing as they wish with the code?
Why GPLv3? Why not make the license permissive as possible?