@Ole Man
"NOT 'people might build proprietary extensions to open source programs.'"
Which explains the existence of the LGPL, and their paper encouraging people to stop using LGPL and start using GPL for libraries.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
"just try snitching a bit of Microsoft's or Apple's code and using it for your own personal project"
Slight problem: Only Microsoft and Apple have access to their code. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't.
I can, however, use their publicly available APIs in my own code, and suffer no legal consequences.
"On the other hand, code covered by the GPL is there for you to snitch and use any way you want and distribute it freely, only it can't be integrated and distributed in proprietary code."
In other words, I can use it any way I want - except for the ways in which I can't use it any way I want.
So much for logic.
"Is that a bad thing? You are FORCED to respect the proprietary 'license', why do you find it so difficult to respect the GPL (or FOSS) license?"
Every time I code to a proprietary API, I'm allowed to make my own source code open or closed depending on my preference.
Every time I code to a GPL API, I have to make my own code open.
I think I'll stick to the API that gives me more choice.
I'm actually beginning to like the MIT license a lot - far less restrictions than the GPL. The stuff I want to make public I can make public, and the stuff I want to keep proprietary I can keep proprietary. A lot more sane than trying to force the decision one way or another.
Discussion on:
Message 13 of 1
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
