tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1662018733276195365.post7132813907654714060..comments2023-11-05T00:58:16.991-07:00Comments on Open Source Technology: Apache better than GPL for open-source business?Open Sourcehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10360440838364578863noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1662018733276195365.post-45127741021048018682009-05-01T11:33:00.000-07:002009-05-01T11:33:00.000-07:00I whole-heartedly disagree with the premise of thi...I whole-heartedly disagree with the premise of this article and I believe the author either profoundly misunderstands my 20+ years of history with the GPL or is writing something false in order to get curious people to click on a link that makes them say "WTF?!".<br /><br />I have always preferred the GPL (or LGPL when appropriate) license to licenses like MIT or BSD, and that is why I have written more lines of code for GPL-based projects than non-GPL-based projects by more than 1,000 to 1. Indeed, I believe that MySQL eclipsed PostgreSQL not because it was a better database, but because the PostgreSQL license encouraged quasi-proprietary appropriation of their open source code (just as Sun appropriated the BSD Unix software). Such appropriate may attract a lot of venture capital, but it doesn't grow the project very organically.<br /><br />I therefore ask you to read what I have written at opensource.org or in the O'Reilly book "Open Sources" or speeches I have given that praise the GPL as my own personal favorite license.<br /><br />Of course, as President of the Open Source Initiative, I don't run around saying "any non-GPL license is BAD BAD BAD". I *don't* say that. But I do prefer GPL, as a developer, and as an entrepreneur, and if anybody wants to experiment with other open source-approved licenses, go right ahead. But don't say that my recommendations are away from GPL--that is false.Michael Tiemannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11687577853522250997noreply@blogger.com