Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> In addition, Timescale's license is much more restrictive about allowing derivative works. The GPL lets you create modified versions and/or reuse code in other products, no matter how extensive your changes, as long as the results are also GPL-licensed

I mean, to be fair and add some balance here, a lot of people find that part of the GPL to be very restrictive.

There are many organisations who have banned the use of GPL code altogether because of this, and also because of ambiguity in the license (e.g. the never ending debate about static and dynamic linking etc).






> I mean, to be fair and add some balance here, a lot of people find that part of the GPL to be very restrictive.

I often see comments like this, but they make no sense. If you don't agree with the GPL, then don't use software licensed under it. The same as if there's proprietary software you don't want to license, don't use it. There's nothing to debate.

> There are many organisations who have banned the use of GPL code altogether because of this

Good, they read the license and don't want to follow it, so they don't use it. Exactly as intended.

You're confusing the GPL viral nature, which is a central feature, with something different that you wished for, but isn't real.

And by the way, since Linux is GPL, those same companies almost always make an exception, don't they now?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: