undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnequo3y ago0 comments

Do you know what makes MIT and BSD more complicated for internal tools for these companies?

What about MIT or (two-clause) BSD makes it harder to comply with? Would attribution be an excessive burden for them in case such code ended up in their own products?

My understanding is that BSD and Apache were historically favorable licenses for code that was intended to promote a protocol and make it an industry standard. Easy reuse helped achieving this goal. For example, IIRC FreeBSD's TCP/IP code was repurposed for Windows and MacOS X, and the Apache HTTP server also went a long way toward establishing HTTP as a standard.

Edit: Paragraph on standards.

0 comments

jph3y ago

MIT and BSD et al. required the compliance team to track code, attribute it, audit it, and ensure that if the code ended up in the company's external products, then the company could prove the code was always correctly handled

This necessarily included all updates to the code, subsequent patches by external contributors that come downstream, subsequent patches by internal contributors that go upstream, eventual sunset of the code, etc.

GPL was akin to a bright highlighter stating "internal use only".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

jph3y ago

GPL was akin to a bright highlighter stating "internal use only".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse