GPL is dead, long live MIT/Apache

>>56638872
>now it's largely obsolete
Things are still licensed GPL.

>>56638872
tell that to sony or apple. they certainly agree and will take everything for free giving jack shit back

>>56638872
>Prove me wrong /g/.
You should prove yourself right. You didn't provide any data or logically connected statements, you just pulled a pile of shit out of your ass.

>no sane business wants to take on the liability of a software stack they can't monetize by releasing as closed source?
They don't have to like it, it's our right.

>It's the only way to make money in software
Requires demonstration

>Normies do not care about freedoms
Because they don't know it. They care about the freedoms they know.

>In turn, the compamy invests back into OSS to multiply their earning potential and write off investments as charitable deductions.

So the company gets people working basically for free and on top of that reduce taxes.

>Everyone wins except Stallman and the church of Emacs.
And everyone that prizes freedom.

>>56638872
Just because you like MIT/Apache over GPL doesn't mean GPL is obsolete. You want GNU/Linux to become like OS X where it's closed source and making money off others works and don't give back?

>>56639106

Because you're forced to use MIT or GPL and not roll your own license. Oh no wait....

>>56638872
2-clause BSD much easier but doing actually same.

>>56638872
>monetize
Buzzword bingo!

File: 1460664028650.jpg (11KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 184x184px

>>56638872
the startup i work at releases the core of our product on github. it's our team's main project. i maintain the repo :^) our company is rather successful

>>56639115
>They don't have to like it, it's our right.
spot the mental illness