Comments by "" (@mina86) on "FUTO" channel.

Boo hoo... A for profit corporation wants to benefit from free software without contributing back. Sorry for not feeling any sympathy.
9
‘conversely, if you go GPL type licences then majority of commercial development won't touch it with a 10ft pole.’ — and yet, Linux is doing just fine. This way of thinking is why free software haven’t won. If all the voluntary effort that goes into writing software using permissive licenses went into GPL licenses, companies would have no choice but to use GPL software and would have no way to legally turn it into closed software.
3
> And most large Open Source projects wouldn't work without that backing. This is a conjecture. Linux is doing just fine. Blender is doing just fine. VLC is doing just fine. Samba is doing just fine. My conjecture is that if people stopped volunteering their effort writing software under permissive licenses, companies would have no choice but to start using GPL software.
3
@hansolsson874 , GPLv3 isn’t more permissive than GPLv3. On high level the licenses are equivalent. If you look closely you can find points where GPLv2 is more lenient but you can also find points in the opposite direction. I’ve given four different examples. A general purpose operating system kernel, a tool for creating art, a tool which plays files and implementation of a file sharing protocol. None of them needed permissive licenses or corporate backing to function. So what exactly does ‘it also depends’?
3
@hansolsson874 , yes, like I’ve said, there are differences between the two licenses. But saying GPLv2 is more permissive is dumb and misleading. There isn’t some great difference between the two licenses and it has no impact on corporate participation. Indeed, you’ve properly used the term ‘coincidentally’ since Linux staying at GPLv2 is more related to it being near impossibility to relicense it now and corporations who contribute to Linux would continue doing so even if it was under GPLv3.
3
@pldaniels , Linux is GPL so LGPL has little baring on its success. Linux succeeded because it was an excellent product and companies couldn’t afford to reimplement it. Even now whenever company tries to write their own kernel they end up creating something with very limited applicability or abandoning the project (see Fuchsia). > bit comes down to a bit more than the licencing, or maybe not . That’s exactly my point. Copyleft licenses don’t mean companies won’t touch the software and permissive licenses don’t guarantee success. > For permissive/BSD/MIT/X11/PD type people, we write the code to do a job and then just throw it out there for anyone to do anything with it, Right, and this is why free software hasn’t won yet. Because there’s enough code which is friendly to closed source that companies don’t need to open source their code.
2
@pldaniels , > Who's to say that OpenSource has any more right to dominate than ClosedCommercial? No one. But the title of this video is ‘Why hasn’t Open Source won?’ So the discussion is in this context. I claim nothing about who has rights to what. I simply state why free software hasn’t won 90% of the market share. > if you want that extra polish then that's going to take something to compel someone to put aside the bordem/disdain for the process, and that currently means money and/or power. And if the original software was under copyleft license, company would have to legally contribute under the same license rather than releasing closed source program.
2
@hansolsson874 , yes, like I’ve said there are differences between the two licenses but contrasting the two by implying that GPLv2 is permissive is simply wrong. They are largely the same. Discussing differences between them is a waste of time in conversation which also involves BSD, MIT and Apache licenses. Indeed, you correctly used the term ‘coincidentally’ since Linux staying at GPLv2 doesn’t influence whether corporations want to contribute to it or not. At the moment it’s near legal impossibility to relicense the kernel so Linus’ opinion doesn’t really matter much either. Companies who care about anti-TiVoisation wouldn’t contribute anyway. That was the entire point of TiVo’s case.
2
@hansolsson874 , calling GPLv2 more permissive than GPLv3 is simply not true. There are some differences between the licenses but they largely impose the same restrictions: if you release binaries you have to also release the source code. If you look closely you can point at some permissions that GPLv2 gives you that GPLv3 doesn’t, but for any one of those you can find something which goes in the other direction. I gave examples of four very different GPL projects which all are doing fine. One is a kernel. One is a creative tool for making artwork. One is a tool which just plays video files. And one is implementation of a file sharing protocol. If such collection of projects don’t need to resort to appeasing corporations by using permissive license, what does that need actually depend on?
1
@MarioFanGamer659 , Google used Linux because that was the only kernel available to them. Google tried to develop their own kernel, but that proved too complex even for them. Even now many Android phones can be rooted and no one sprints to lock the bootloader.
1