GPL License Debates

The cluster discusses the GPL license's viral nature, enforcement challenges, compatibility with corporate interests, acquisitions, and its impact on open source software adoption by companies.

➡️ Stable 0.5x Open Source
5,631
Comments
20
Years Active
5
Top Authors
#331
Topic ID

Activity Over Time

2007
1
2008
36
2009
152
2010
147
2011
196
2012
287
2013
217
2014
234
2015
508
2016
449
2017
326
2018
192
2019
296
2020
370
2021
646
2022
345
2023
531
2024
250
2025
433
2026
15

Keywords

BusyBox BSD BMW NET gpl.html GPL AGPL FUD NOT DRM gpl software code copyright license licenses companies free software viral commercial

Sample Comments

ikiris Dec 17, 2020 View on HN

It's supposed to be against the GPL, but no one is willing to chase it.

sytelus Feb 29, 2020 View on HN

I get GPL and fully appreciate its philosophy. The problem happens when you actually use it in practice. Because of its viral nature, anyone with different licensing must convert to GPL if they use your code. For many scenarios, this is actually not possible not just because of commercial secrets but the potential for opening up for security vulnerabilities when you don’t have resources or competitions where you should keep code secret until some time or simply because you have dependencies on o

wongarsu Mar 6, 2015 View on HN

As long as the Linux kernel exists, the GPL won't die. As long as cooperation want to use Linux, they will touch GPL'd software. As long as you don't modify that software, there's no harm to the cooperation.Besides, there's compelling reasons for companies to GPL software they code which doesn't overlap with their core business. If you happen to code a new testing framework because you need one, you can GPL it and profit from the community improving it. In that c

kiba Jul 5, 2010 View on HN

Nobody is saying that it's an excuse to not respect the GPL.

riotnrrd Mar 14, 2022 View on HN

You're probably correct. GPL is (unreasonably) radioactive to many companies.

ex_amazon_sde Sep 6, 2017 View on HN

GPLv3, as it protects from patent trolls and also encourages creating an better ecosystem.There are companies that refuse to use GPLed code. They want to modify and then sell closed forks of your product, without paying you, and by doing so they fragment the userbase. GPL prevents this.If you want to allow them to do so you can always switch to BSD or dual-license - perhaps after a private agreement and if you find the companies reputable.

beambot Oct 10, 2011 View on HN

Has using GPL-licensed code prevented anyone else from being acquired? That really struck me...

spookie Sep 2, 2025 View on HN

Corporate interests != GPL is not on the cards

haolez Aug 15, 2024 View on HN

Old(?) school open source with GPL licenses doesn't seem to suffer from this, on a first glance. Maybe Stallman was right. Would love to hear from someone more knowledgeable on this. I'm not trying to troll.

hammerhorn Feb 16, 2025 View on HN

People who are not okay with being forked should reconsider their decision to be use the GPL.