> 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?
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"?