> Except, there are a lot of folks here who seem to think everything should fall under GPL.
Except, there’s nothing forcing someone to take a GPL’d library and integrate it into their application.
If you don’t like the license don’t use the code and later whine about “punitive” actions taken against you.
At this point there’s no excuse for not knowing that the GPL is very restrictive and the code isn’t free-for-all. No excuse except maybe they think they won’t get caught by including some reverse-engineering clause in their TOS so people can’t find out. That worked out pretty well for these folks, no?
Many projects release under multiple licenses, and try to cover everyone's use-cases. So a user may be violating GPL rules, and not violating the rules at the same time. One often can't tell by simply looking at the source or .so dump alone.
My point was, I personally don't want to inflict my own idealism on people 10 years from now, that will be doing something completely unpredictable. =)
Except, there’s nothing forcing someone to take a GPL’d library and integrate it into their application.
If you don’t like the license don’t use the code and later whine about “punitive” actions taken against you.
At this point there’s no excuse for not knowing that the GPL is very restrictive and the code isn’t free-for-all. No excuse except maybe they think they won’t get caught by including some reverse-engineering clause in their TOS so people can’t find out. That worked out pretty well for these folks, no?