> Although permissive licenses are great for libraries, they aren't that good for applications. Why would you let someone make a closed source version of your open source video editor?
Because you believe that open source actually works and is efficient in practice, such that even if someone makes and sells a proprietary derivative, it is more likely to grow the pie than to harm the open source base (and likely, if the downstream vendor is smart, to result in substantial contributions back to the core, because the downstream vendor can't get community maintenance to control costs without contributing stuff back to the community.)
Works for a variety of existing permissively licensed software for which their proprietary downstream versions, the sellers of which are also sponsors of and code contributors to the open source project.
Personally speaking: I think open source/permissive licensing works for libraries. I think it's been amply demonstrated that that doesn't work well at all for applications, and honestly that's the one place where I'll throw a bone to the free software folks.
> I think open source/permissive licensing works for libraries. I think it's been amply demonstrated that that doesn't work well at all for applications
PostgreSQL is an application, not a library. It is permissively licensed. It has at least one major proprietary downstream derivative that contributes back significantly to the core. Its usually recognized as a successful open source RDBMS.
Please explain to me how it is "amply demonstrated" that permissive licensing "doesn't work at all for applications"?
I am surprised that you would attempt to stretch the definition of "application", in the consumer-software context in which this discussion very obviously is, to server software.
> I am surprised that you would attempt to stretch the definition of "application", in the consumer-software context in which this discussion very obviously is, to server software.
I am still seeing a complete lack of support for the claim that it is "amply demonstrated" that permissive licensing "doesn't work at all for applications", even restricting "applications" to consumer applications.
OSX, Safari, apple never contributed back to the core
Windows used (Net?) BSD network stack
Google did not contribute much back to the linux kernel even though it's GPL though.
So many products/compagnies are using FFmpeg and not contributing back.
With that many risks already existing, it is safe to assume that most compagnies would not contribute back.
Besides, postgresql is not an application, no
Would Oracle have bought Mysql if it was BSD ? Probably not
How about Eclipse? I know non-programmers who use Bioclipse and Knime, just for example.
Maybe those aren't the greatest applications ever, but imagine what it might be like given a different upstream product with similarly permissive licensing?
Because you believe that open source actually works and is efficient in practice, such that even if someone makes and sells a proprietary derivative, it is more likely to grow the pie than to harm the open source base (and likely, if the downstream vendor is smart, to result in substantial contributions back to the core, because the downstream vendor can't get community maintenance to control costs without contributing stuff back to the community.)
Works for a variety of existing permissively licensed software for which their proprietary downstream versions, the sellers of which are also sponsors of and code contributors to the open source project.