[malicka]

I get that permissive licenses are popular now, but “freedom to make sure other people don’t have freedom” still doesn’t feel like a compelling argument.

In specific cases, they make sense purely practically; but generally? It feels like a huge error for the whole world to leave copyleft and the GPL behind. The reason we can run Linux on everything is because Torvalds chose the GPL, and so vendors are forced to share their drivers if they use the kernel. And that is a truly magnificent achievement.

[zeta0134]

GPL makes sense in a context where that sort of vendor compatibility creates existential conflicts for the product. For an operating system and associated toolset, it is clearly an excellent license and does great work encouraging the necessary cooperation from otherwise unwilling partners.

Games are a different beast. For one, the dominant revenue model for videogames continues to be to sell copies of the software, and most digital platforms want (understandably) to apply some sort of DRM to those purchases. If I license my game library for GPL it means that, among other things, users are not free to use it in their iOS, Android, Nintendo, PS4, Xbox, or Steam* releases. That makes the library dead on arrival for almost all of the compelling distribution channels. As a result, all of my game libraries are MIT. I want users to be able to sell software that is built using my library, and that means I want to use the most permissive library possible.

There is a place to fight philosophical grounds, and then separately there is wanting to make sure that my actual users (game developers) aren't restricted by my personal philosophies. Thankfully, MIT is itself perfectly copyleft compatible. You can very well include it in your GPL games, and I'd love to hear if you do! But if you are the much more typical developer trying to make a living with your craft, then I want to support the practical realities of your available storefront options, and let you get on with that.

(*Someone much better versed in license legalese informed me that Steam games can be released under GPL so long as they avoid the Steam SDK. I am not lawyer-y enough to confirm this or speak to the details.)

[tmtvl]

If I make a game with SDL then I am not the user of SDL, I am an intermediary between the people who develop SDL and the player who eventually uses SDL in interacting with the game. Calling people who distribute libraries with their programs users instead of reserving that term for the people who actually use the programs with the included libraries is just wrong. If a farmer sells oranges to a supermarket and the supermarket then puts those oranges in baskets together with other fruits and then sells those fruit baskets you wouldn't call the supermarket the consumer of those oranges.

[atrus]

Does it make sense to release everything as GPL, while simultaneously offering a non-gpl option for like $$?

Developers get an unlimited free use trial to try your code, up until release. At which point they can decide to either contribute back with either their code or their money.

[Aurornis]

> It feels like a huge error for the whole world to leave copyleft and the GPL behind.

I think GPL is great for certain projects and goals.

There are many times where my goal isn’t to retain control, though. I just want to help and have other people use some of my code some times. I don’t really care if it’s an individual working on a hobby project or a giant corporation putting it in their product. My little 1-person open source contribution isn’t going to be the make or break thing to some megacorp’s success or failure.

I think it’s great for Linux. Doesn’t need to be applied to everything though.

[Joel_Mckay]

Personally prefer Apache license over GPL simply to mitigate contamination problems, commercial relationship contexts, and patent risks.

Some groups can get rather fussy over the definition of "free", but one can't assume some personal use-case still makes sense a decade from now. =3