On 09/02/2025(Tue) 17:50
Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters. wrote:

> Daniel Abrecht via Dng said on Tue, 02 Sep 2025 15:17:14 +0200
> >Am 2025-09-02 14:35, schrieb Kevin Chadwick via Dng:  
> >> My point of view is that we want open source contributors to be good
> >> actors and the GPL does not help with that and just erects walls to
> >> good actors that need to make a living primarily and contribute
> >> because they want to.    

> >
> >The GPL doesn't erect any walls at all.
>
> Once I GPL my code, I can't sell it because everybody who downloads it
> is my competitor, and they didn't need to take months getting the code
> right. I think this is the wall to which Kevin refers.
>
> In fact, for just that reason, I usually use the Epoch license (similar
> to one of the BSD licenses) so that I can take a modification of my
> code and take it private, if I want to (and so can anybody else).
>
> However, if I build my mailing list replacement, I'll probably license
> it Affero to keep the walled garden monopolists away.

I think that those of you discussing the licensing are making a huge
mistake, if companies do not follow the license, it doesn't matter if
it's GPL, MIT, BSD, or anything else.

Linux has been used without the companies releasing the source code which
they modified.

Until we can get them to respect the current license, I don't see a point
in saying that X or Y license would be a better choice.

David