Potentially interesting, but my interest waned considerably when I saw it's GPLv3.
The C++ implementation is also LGPL.
IMHO such licences actually hold free software back.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/clearskies-dev/sTlXzBO...
For the sync app itself GPL would have worked great, but we want to have an easy-to-integrate sync library. Hopefully this will reduce the number of apps that require a cloud service to be able to synchronize the user data between devices.
I find that very, very bizarre. Can you explain your thinking?
What makes _your_ "I don't care about licensing, and neither should you" opinion not bizarre, and his "I don't care about projects with wrong license" bizarre?
I agree that parent comment didn't add much to the discussion, but that's not the reason to imply bizarreness of it.
If it's a project that interests or is useful to me, then personally that trumps the license. If I discover a project useful to my workflow then I'll find a way to work with it, despite the license.
> What makes _your_ "I don't care about licensing, and neither should you" opinion not bizarre
Because it's my opinion and I generally don't find my opinions bizarre, otherwise I wouldn't hold them.
And I didn't say "I don't care about licensing, and neither should you" or even insinuate that.
He's more than welcome to care more about a license over a usefulness of piece of software and I'll still find it odd.
GPL is rather limiting in how you can use the code. A large company (e.g. Apple) won't let something gpl be used heavily internally if they can help it since they won't be able to apply patches or modify it without releasing these changes ... this obligation adds significant legal burden and, furthermore, releasing the changes could reveal private details about the companies internals.
I don't think that the commentor's reason is a good one, but I can understand the viewpoint; GPLv3 is quite limiting for some uses.
they can use and patch GPL product internally as long as they want.