Did I miss something on an explicit patent grant for zstd (that was removed)?
Conversation
Replying to
🤷
We have been doing nonsense ritual things for license compatibility reasons for too long, IMHO.
1
Replying to
well, no. 15 years ago, when i started mucking about in this space, we had GPLv2, and it was basically the universal receiver. this mess started when FSF decided they needed to make GPLv3 as a cry for attention.
1
Replying to
GPLv2 (only) / Apache v2.0 compatibility concerns predate GPLv3...
I.e., incorporating Apache 2.0 code in a GPLv2 (only) work caused organ rejection in the GPLv2 body.
1
1
Replying to
yes, but the thing is, Apache 2.0 wouldn't have made ingress into free software community if the GPL did not become fragmented. Apache 2.0 would have stayed with the open source weirdos ^_^
1
2
Replying to
Hmmm... Maybe?
Common license adoption has some interesting dynamics ⬇️. Compatibility is a minor factor, yet I see it drive license choice (both adoption and exit).
law.uh.edu/faculty/gvette
1
Replying to
i'm not going to argue about this, the reality is that GPLv2 was the elephant in the room.
1
1
I think most companies would have been perfectly happy with GPLv2 for their own software... with the huge caveat of requiring signing a CLA giving them a permissive license or copyright assignment.
I think they'd still have wanted to avoid using GPL software not owned by them.