[Prarnenoexpog]

The problem is with licensing, more often than not it is the open source licensing (GPL, etc) that make it unusable for businesses.

If it is licensed under the GPL, then the company will need to open source every component it is built with (including the software _we_ write that uses it). It's childish and inhibits adoption of OSS.

It's because of this that all OSS projects at most big organizations need the lawyers to vet the licenses before they're used. And that is expensive, actually.

[ashleyjoseph]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Only if you're reselling software that actually links with that code. Which is precisely what we do?

[StincPriene]

I think it rather depends on your goal, doesn't it? His goal may not be to enhance OSS as a business tool... his goal, more than likely, is something you wouldn't even agree with as a good thing, but that doesn't mean he's a moron.

[SergZHy67]

If programmers use GPL software and 'close' their additional work, GPL isn't really growing, isn't it?

[HRCPda7R]

Originally posted by Asher


What?
If it is licensed under the GPL, then the company will need to open source every component it is built with (including the software _we_ write that uses it). It's childish and inhibits adoption of OSS.

[KixdricyArrip]

Don't try to confuse the filosofer with logic, Asher. It's not fair.

[PhillipHer]

Originally posted by Asher
If they use the GPL then "close" their additional work, it violates the GPL... Um, no? You cannot *distribute* software that has GPL parts under any other license. If you hack, say, gcc to make it accept some wierd macro and use it inside your company, then you don't have to release it back into the wild.

[Theariwinna]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


WTF?

1. He wants more GPL.
2. If you use GPL and then close the additional work, then there isn't more GPL.
3. Thus he won't allow it.

The rationale would be: adoption of GPL software is not worth it, if it doesn't result in more being created.

The counter-rationale would be that allowing it would gradually encourage people to be more open about GPL.

The counter-counter is that it's delusional to believe businesses would encourage it seriously (as it would run against their very interests). Thus he doesn't want them to 'freeride'... WTF indeed.

I have no idea what the **** you are talking about, and I suspect this is because you have no idea what the **** you are talking about.

I understand his rationale behind it. It's just stupid for long-term widespread adoption of GPL code.

It's such an aggressive and demanding license that it's driving legit users of the code away, which prevents society from benefiting from it as a whole. I'm going to assume you haven't read the OSS manifesto, so perhaps this is why you're so clueless about the subject.

Compare the GPL to the BSD license. GPL software is still largely restricted to the flat and uninspiring Linux ecosystem, while BSD code is used on virtually every computer on the face of the planet. Microsoft Windows includes some BSD code, and Apple even leveraged an entire OS kernel under the BSD license to make OS X. It's this kind of permissive license that is driving OSS adoption in the real world, while the GPL's restrictions and draconian nature will keep it as a niche license that businesses tend to avoid.

[bestcigsnick]

Originally posted by Asher
Which means if we use GPL code in any way (dynamically or statically linked), then we need to release the source code for our work. Except in this case, where it sounds like the GPL software is a standalone program that you could just invoke.

[juliannamed]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Except in this case, where it sounds like the GPL software is a standalone program that you could just invoke. It is not, it is a software library. It is a DLL. Which means it is dynamically linked to. Which means they cannot use it.

[Xibizopt]

Originally posted by Asher
It is not, it is a software library. It is a DLL. Which means it is dynamically linked to. Which means they cannot use it. They just need to run this batch conversion once a night or w/e, right? So you build a tiny standalone program that links to the conversion library and just GPL that, leaving the rest of your codebase fine.

[Roker]

Originally posted by Supr49er
It's common to refer to the company where you work as "my company". I know that.
However, I make a point of not calling the bank I work for "my bank". Or even "our bank".

[MrsGoo]

It's just hard to discuss the matter with someone who cannot grasp the fundamentals.

[IteseFrusty]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Asher, is there a free online utility for converting old WPD files (mid-late 90s Word Perfect) to MS Word? My PC doesn't have the full MS Word, so it won't auto convert them.

Invoices for your billable hours can be sent to my, uh, P.O. Box... 1 ... in Portland, OR...


I'd doubt it, it's included in Word...