Companies *want* the GPL [LWN.net]

Companies want the GPL

Posted Jul 1, 2005 20:31 UTC (Fri) by stijn (subscriber, #570)
Parent article: ESR: 'We Don't Need the GPL Anymore' (O'ReillyNet)

Is it not true that companies should *want* the GPL? Elsethread somebody mentions SGI and XFS; I remember the same thing being said about (by?) IBM. The GPL levels and widens the playing field, and blocks off embrace/extend/strangle routes. This seems *especially* true for Linux, and I am positively sure that companies benefit from its license. The GPL is the best thing since sliced bread. Then again, it is about freedom, and Raymond's quest for world domination and focus on market share, market penetration, marketing and whatnot are in that respect wide off the mark.

(Log in to post comments)

Companies *want* the GPL

Posted Jul 1, 2005 21:33 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

Right. A lot of people say the GPL is anti-commercial, but it actually protects the commercial interests of those who wish to release free versions of their software while holding back the right to make non-free versions. They would either sell that right for money, using a commercial license; or use that right to restrain their competition.

Bruce

Companies *want* the GPL

Posted Jul 1, 2005 21:43 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]

Give the man a cigar (or whatever those Californians consider a treat).

Where would Troll Tech or MySQL's much-applauded dual licensing model be without the GPL as one of the two alternatives?

Companies *want* the GPL

Posted Jul 2, 2005 0:31 UTC (Sat) by jdave23 (guest, #27160) [Link]

Come on, Don -

Everybody knows Bruce is a Long Islander!

Companies *want* the GPL

Posted Jul 2, 2005 1:40 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

I left LI for the SF Bay Area in 1987, and have been back only for short visits since. The weather's nicer in California, and the women more appreciative. :-)

Bruce

Companies *want* the GPL

Posted Jul 4, 2005 5:07 UTC (Mon) by lovelace (guest, #278) [Link]

You know, the irony of this statement is incredible seeing as how Gtk was chosen for UserLinux over KDE and Qt simply because KDE and Qt are licensed under the GPL and not the LGPL.

No irony

Posted Jul 4, 2005 9:30 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

No irony at all. The LGPL protects companies from non-free forks as well as the GPL; but it also allows for linking to non-free programs. The difference is really only relevant for libraries.

By the way, KDE is not licensed wholly under the GPL, as explained here; Qt is, as explained in the document you linked. Just a fine point, but better safe than sorry when legal issues are at stake.