@onepict
Yep. It was only recently I properly understood why I was always reluctant to contribute to a permissive #FOSS project. I knew it was bad, but Redis have given the example I needed to explain it in one word.
All my own projects are GPL and I will never contribute to anything like #MIT, #Apache or #BSD licensed code. If I need a project I'll just fork and switch it to GPL. #Licensing
@lewiscowles1986
Sure, it won't change the license for earlier code but any changes or new code will be under GPL which is what I mean. It's just the reverse of what Redis have done.
@markhughes@onepict
I didn't know GPL code was allowed to link to non GPL code.
I Think there may be exceptions for things like including JS in a webpage, but I'm fairly certain even things such as class name mangling by react, mean integration is technically linked code as it's not a convention, but app-specific code.
I Could be wrong, but I'd love to know why if I am, and what resources to check against.
@lewiscowles1986
I don't claim expertise but you may be overthinking this. Lots of GPL code is likely to link with things that aren't GPL.
If I hold copyright and decide to license that code as GPL, I don't see how what it links with or what projects make use of it or whatever is an issue.
My contribution, my code can only be used under the licenses I choose to offer. @onepict
@lewiscowles1986
On reflection I think you are right but I'm not going to look into it until the issue arises, and then I'll figure out the best way to approach it. Which might just be to avoid permissive code or projects.
What I believe is that we should shout about this now that we have a clear understanding and a concrete example of why permissive licenses are bad for open source. #FOSS
Add comment