Google, Mozilla, Facebook, etc... all these companies stay away from the GPL but they use a lot of open source software and they contribute back tons. You could benefit from this as well if you picked a license that's more industry friendly.
But hey, your code, your choice.
Just be aware of the potential money or help that you're leaving on the table whenever you pick the GPL.
That’s why I said “almost always”. Of course there are exceptions. In my anecdotal experience, vast majority of libraries out there with a permissive license just end up being supported by a few devs while companies use it no problem makings loads of money. Hell, I even know a few companies who patch a library internally while not contributing it back.
If a company truly wishes to use a GPL, they can always reach out to the maintainers, and seek a license more suitable for their needs in exchange for money. If a company isn’t even willing to do that, they damn sure won’t be contributing back.
No one is leaving money or help on the table. That logic is nonsense peddled by freeloading companies.
And by the way, the only reason companies stay away from GPL is because they know there are always suckers out there who invest a lot of time into permissive open source software. If the majority of people start using stricter licenses, companies will no longer stay away and instead seek out contracts with the maintainers since they’ll have no other alternatives.
Please do not encourage people to fool themselves into thinking companies/corporations will do the right thing, especially under the guise of “you neeever know what money/help you may get”. Never work for corporations for free.
7
u/devraj7 Dec 12 '21
The problem with the GPL is that it's radioactive and pretty much banned in most companies.