License selection for free software

[Carl Banks]

On May 7, 3:51 am, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> Carl Banks <pavlovevide... at gmail.com> writes:
> > Nonsense.  They could be more than willing to contribute their
> > patches, but aren't willing to accept the GPL's limitation to being
> > used only in open source packages.
>
> Oh, I see what you mean--I'm considering any derived work to be a
> patch, which is maybe an overbroad use of that term.  If they are
> willing to contribute their patches in that sense, the GPL shouldn't
> be a problem.  If they want to just send back small scraps of
> improvement while incorporating the GPL'd program into a closed
> program, the GPL is doing its job if it prevents that.

I think what I said is applicable to derived works, if the idea is to
derive another non-open-source work in turn.

I.e., someone might be motived to create a derived work of some code
with the expectation of using it in their non-open-source project, but
if it's GPLed they can't do that, so they probably wouldn't bother.


Carl Banks