Hacker News Reader

Comment by zimpenfish | Hacker News Reader

> The original stance of the open source crowd was more along the lines of the GPL -> GPLv3 -> AGPL, which expressly prevents this kind of thing.

Not wanting to further widen the schism but wasn't that the free software people rather than the open source people? cf [0], particularly the "not as strict" part.

> In the late 1990's Eric Raymond and others developed the term "open source" as a more business friendly term than "free software", with a more inclusive meaning where licenses that were not as strict about the passing on of modifications would also quality for the term.

[0] https://www.freeopensourcesoftware.org/index.php?title=Eric_...

View on HN

No, open source was definitely more leaning toward the GPLv2 than the BSD-style licenses.

…until businesses decided that the GPLv2 was legally risky and businesses started to avoid it.

Software businesses. Other businesses do not care.

This is FUD. Some businesses may have a policy of not using GPL software, but all the major enterprises, including Microsoft and Apple, use GPL software.

My comment wasn’t written with enough precision.

Using GPL software: yes. Totally fine. The rise of Linux and all that jazz.

Incorporating any part of GPL software _into_ other products? Pretty much doesn’t happen. Every company I’ve ever worked for has said “do not bring LGPL or GPL software into the codebase.” When it comes to commercial software, be it cloud based, or downloadable, you’re not going to find much that tries to incorporate GPL stuff. You just won’t.

Of course proprietary software products aren’t going to bring in the GPL. They literally can’t.

They _literally_ could.

How does one keep software proprietary while leveraging the GPL (aside from the case of not distributing it)?

There are a few avenues.

1. You incorporate GPL software and hope that no one notices and/or no one challenges. This is the most popular approach, and it’s quite successful, actually. 2. You cease to be a proprietary software company. Less popular, but an option.

Both of these are literally possible.

1 is a breach of license, 2 is not a solution to the problem, it is avoiding the problem.

Plenty of companies develop both proprietary software and contribute to GPL codebases. It’s not at all the dichotomy you think it is.

Just because it’s a breach of license doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen…

Plenty of companies also don’t allow their employees to contribute to GPL tools with company resources.

Apple often goes to great lengths to avoid anything GPL.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com