Nice! I'm excited about this.
Why GPLv3? Why not make the license permissive as possible?
Why GPLv3? Why not make the license permissive as possible?
Because you believe that open source actually works and is efficient in practice, such that even if someone makes and sells a proprietary derivative, it is more likely to grow the pie than to harm the open source base (and likely, if the downstream vendor is smart, to result in substantial contributions back to the core, because the downstream vendor can't get community maintenance to control costs without contributing stuff back to the community.)
Works for a variety of existing permissively licensed software for which their proprietary downstream versions, the sellers of which are also sponsors of and code contributors to the open source project.
PostgreSQL is an application, not a library. It is permissively licensed. It has at least one major proprietary downstream derivative that contributes back significantly to the core. Its usually recognized as a successful open source RDBMS.
Please explain to me how it is "amply demonstrated" that permissive licensing "doesn't work at all for applications"?
Well, that's a lie, I'm not surprised.
I am still seeing a complete lack of support for the claim that it is "amply demonstrated" that permissive licensing "doesn't work at all for applications", even restricting "applications" to consumer applications.
Maybe those aren't the greatest applications ever, but imagine what it might be like given a different upstream product with similarly permissive licensing?
GPLv3 is a lot more restrictive than GPLv2 which is already restrictive.
Honestly, if had a GPLvX software and some guy came to me asking for a different license with the agreement that he would support it commercially I would be 100% ok with that (especially if he would agree to push bug fixes back to me - it would be a win-win for everyone).
How would that be any different than hiring a consultant to configure/support it in house? If you are using GPL software privately then you don't have to release the changes or the source. The only difference being is that if a whole company supported the one product they could have multiple people to work on it.
How is that a bad thing? I think that's a zero sum game way of looking at it.
No damage is done if someone makes a closed source version. They can add value and stimulate competition. More often, they fail.
Occasionally, core developers may enrich and provide additional functionality upon a permissive core. Why not look at Postgres as an example?
And what harm is done? Lost code contributions? Some have no interest in collaborating on software they can't incorporate / copy from later without restriction. It takes time to wrap ones brain around a codebase.
Why would someone take time to understand the internals of a GPLv3 app, when they could never incorporate pieces of it in their code later on?
> it's ideal for applications like this.
Ideal is subjective. Judging by the above, it seems as if enforcing envy trumps programmers doing as they wish with the code.
...to make it better for their uses, rather than their products? "Enforcing envy," though--please, be more of a jerk.
I'm curious as to what large-scale applications have you developed and released under a permissive license that make you such an authority on what others should do with tens of thousands of their man-hours.