GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
I'm not voting, because you asked for developers but I prefer BSD or Other, I think, just because of what teval said - the GPL 'forces' people to give back. I have no problem with that as nobody 'forces' you to use the GPL in the first place, but I like the BSD/Other 'do whatever the hell you wanna do' angles and would just prefer that people *chose* to give back to the community because they understand the advantages of the bazaar. Okay, yeah, naive/idealistic/whatever.
I wouldn't like a company to take hundreds of hours of my work. Make a few code monkeys put a few hundred extra hours of work into it and then commercialize it. I'd feel cheated.
My opinion of companies.. souless cash whores. They wouldn't give back to the community unless they could get something out of it, or would be forced to. I'll bet on the latter
If I'm about to release a program as open-source, I'd choose the GNU GPL license because it provides a maximum of freedoms for the program's users while ensuring that enhancements benefit the same community. The BSD license--and licenses like it--would allow commercial software developers to profit from my labor without having to contribute back to the program users' community in return.
I'm not going to go as far as to say machine-code-only licenses are bad, but the dfferent licenses have their own niches. As long as we must continue to live in a capitalist society, I see nothing wrong with using machine-code-only licenses that still protect the users' rights (i.e., no spyware, no authoritarian authentication schemes, no insane restrictions on allowing the user to run a copy on one computer at a time, etc.)--provided that the program is open-sourced after a reasonable amount of time or after the program has become obsolete and/or unsupported.
Actually the choice of licensing terms is irrelevant... It's whether you're able to enforce it that's important.
Which is why individual programmers will benefit by releasing their software with OSI approved licenses. You can get support from organisations such as OSI, the FSF, etc.
Unlike proprietry licenses which can be culled beyond recognition by lawyers. And let's face it, say for example you have proof that some megacorp has stolen your code... can you afford a really good lawyer to battle their fleet of suits?