Hacker News Reader

Comment by int_19h | Hacker News Reader

Many companies are still afraid of copyleft. When you see what actually gets used in corporate environments and shipped in commercial products, it's almost exclusively MIT/BSDL/AL, some LGPL, and very little GPL.

View on HN

"Used in corporate environments" and "Shipped" are two completely different thing. You will find GPL software all over the place in the enterprise because there is no risk.

You won't often see GPL software in shipped commercial products, because when you ship stuff you might need to include proprietary components you don't want to have to open up. It still does happen from time to time though.

I have personally worked on a GPL component that's a crucial part of a shipped Microsoft product, so I'm well aware that it happens. But compared to non-copyleft licenses, it's a drop in the bucket, even with the industry-wide embrace of Linux. And if Linux couldn't blaze that path for other stuff, I'm not sure what can.

Well, GPL "tools" like Linux, Git, Emacs, etc, will be used. If there's an established pattern that using a GPL licensed thing doesn't trigger GPL terms on their code, companies are fine with it.

And forget about using GPLv3 or AGPL software.

"copyleft" is a loose term used to refer to all GPL-ish things collectively

Yes. I'm not sure I would say afraid but certainly cautious. I would avoid recommending GPL software to anyone I work with or for. The license is too complicated, the rules too strict (and seem to change with every license version), the FSF is too hardline. Simple, permissive licenses are easier and safer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com