Preferences

There's always a tradeoff in use or contribution. If a project is under a more restrictive license the odds of individuals or companies contributing (or for certain licenses even using) drops radically.

If your intent is just "I wrote this thing, sharing the code" license as restrictively as you'd like. If your intent is "I want to build (and/or get others to help build) a bigger thing", restrictions scare folks off.

It's trivial for me to get approval from my employer to do almost anything in almost any MIT-licensed codebase; we use and contribute to a number of GPLv2 codebases. However GPLv3 is a very rigid line in the sand that I do not expect to ever change.


What is it about GPLv3 that causes a line in the sand?

The source distribution, modification and reinstallation requirements are pretty much identical, at least according to the main folks doing Linux kernel GPL enforcement for the last decades.

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...

Arainach OP
The patent clauses are significant, and for any product which interacts with DRM the DRM clauses are a showstopper.

This item has no comments currently.