Karl Auerbach on Nostr: I own and run a small company that builds network testing products ...
I own and run a small company that builds network testing products (software+hardware).
We use some open source software and are glad at the rich array of material out there. And we try hard to meet the license obligations.
Over time we have developed a rule that no viral license (e.g. GPL) software will be used by us except after consideration whether it will glue its obligations to our proprietary code. Because that is often uncertain, it is a risk that drives us to reduce our incorporation of GPL based code even to the degree of not using it in toolchains.
My sense is that viral licenses (vs things like Bsd or MIT licenses) is eventually destructive, that fear of viral license attachment is slowly (and almost invisibly) poisoning the software development world, and is slowly driving larger commercial software vendors - Apple, Cisco, etc - away from viral licensed code.
(My company has published a few open source pieces, but usually under Bsd style licenses without viral glue.)
We use some open source software and are glad at the rich array of material out there. And we try hard to meet the license obligations.
Over time we have developed a rule that no viral license (e.g. GPL) software will be used by us except after consideration whether it will glue its obligations to our proprietary code. Because that is often uncertain, it is a risk that drives us to reduce our incorporation of GPL based code even to the degree of not using it in toolchains.
My sense is that viral licenses (vs things like Bsd or MIT licenses) is eventually destructive, that fear of viral license attachment is slowly (and almost invisibly) poisoning the software development world, and is slowly driving larger commercial software vendors - Apple, Cisco, etc - away from viral licensed code.
(My company has published a few open source pieces, but usually under Bsd style licenses without viral glue.)