On 09/21/2017 09:47 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
I think the GPL one looks right. Fear, anger, offense if someone has
the possibility of using their software and not contributing back.
To me I think it doesn't work as much as they think. It doesn't take
into account the free will of people to walk away and completely not
use their software. I personally don't even look at GPL licensed
sources unless there are none other available which is very rare. I
don't want the knowledge or understanding of that code tainting
other code I write.
MIT often means, we don't care, do what you want, just don't blame
us.
We don't care if you take it and use it in closed source proprietary
money making big corp software.
We don't care if you take it and use it and keep it to yourself.
We don't care ... Just don't blame us for any problems.
However, we would love your buy in on open source philosophy and
contribute back where you are able. We understand you have software
which is business critical, proprietary and can not be open sourced.
We also know that you probably have software which has no business
specific (your business) code which is releasable. And we see many,
many, big and small businesses doing so today. Close off what you
must, open what you can.
I don't think most of us are afraid of no one using our code.
PostgreSQL has no such fear. SQLite which is public domain has no
such fear. And we could go on and on. Python, etc...
I personally am very much in the camp of I want people to contribute
because they want to contribute. Not because I have a stick called
the GPL. But rather because I have the carrot of all of the benefits
derived from open source software. I am carrot oriented, not stick
oriented.
Jimmie