Re:We Love GPLv3, but Are Switching License to Apache 2.0
by dspillett on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @06:13AM
(#25357435)
> issued a blanket ban on any single line of code licensed under GPLv3
I've also seen blanket bans on all GPL related licences in code (the dynamic in OS/app/other use differs, though way-back-when there was enough FUD/misinformation that there were blanket bans for those too) especially when GPLv2 was introduced (the "liberty or death" aspect was the cause of much consternation, I recall).
I don't think they are interpreting the license differently though for the most part. They are agreeing that is protects the user not the producer, and in giving those protects to the user it might be inconvenient for them (or even impossible for them legally, depending on licensing agreements and other restrictions they have to operate under regarding other parts of their codebase) as a producer.
> In other words, they weren't amateurs; like us.
At least some of the original impetus for the GPL was to protect amateurs like us from being used as free resource for parties that aren't. I'd say this is the system working.
> I think dual licensing as a viable business strategy is pretty much dead at this point
That is quite likely true, but only relevant in such a commercial context. If a developer doesn't care about commercial users of their code, for instance they are scratching an itch & want to share but aren't seeking worldwide adoption (and hold those "outlier opinions on freedom related topics"), then this is not a problem and GPLv3 is still a relevant option on its own.
Commercial viability is not the be all and end all of licensing decisions, if commercial gain and massive reach are not your concerns.
I've also seen blanket bans on all GPL related licences in code (the dynamic in OS/app/other use differs, though way-back-when there was enough FUD/misinformation that there were blanket bans for those too) especially when GPLv2 was introduced (the "liberty or death" aspect was the cause of much consternation, I recall).
I don't think they are interpreting the license differently though for the most part. They are agreeing that is protects the user not the producer, and in giving those protects to the user it might be inconvenient for them (or even impossible for them legally, depending on licensing agreements and other restrictions they have to operate under regarding other parts of their codebase) as a producer.
> In other words, they weren't amateurs; like us.
At least some of the original impetus for the GPL was to protect amateurs like us from being used as free resource for parties that aren't. I'd say this is the system working.
> I think dual licensing as a viable business strategy is pretty much dead at this point
That is quite likely true, but only relevant in such a commercial context. If a developer doesn't care about commercial users of their code, for instance they are scratching an itch & want to share but aren't seeking worldwide adoption (and hold those "outlier opinions on freedom related topics"), then this is not a problem and GPLv3 is still a relevant option on its own.
Commercial viability is not the be all and end all of licensing decisions, if commercial gain and massive reach are not your concerns.