I usually don't state this is an argument for why I know what I'm talking about, but I have a little insight on this subject from working at a one of the big tech companies who is seen as a major contributor and backer of open source (at least to those groups who listen to it's marketing ploys). Inside this company the term GPL is worse then any four letter word. If project managers get a wiff of even the possibility of the GPL license being anywhere close to the code we are developing (even in the tools we use to in some way interact with the code) then the lawyers are called in. The same can be said to a much lesser extent with Apache tools. I'm sure there are many companies who gladly use and contribute to GPL projects, but from my experience as it relates to developing potential future products it isn't the big corporations. I have no doubt that companies like this one are focused to a much greater extent on filing patents on their efforts and ensuring it is not possible for this work to meaningfully contribute to the greater body of open source work that exists.
Originally Posted by kraftman
EDIT: By the way, Microsoft was one of the biggest contributors to Linux in the past year if I remember correctly, but this in no way means this organization is a proponent of open source (and especially not the GPL).
Last edited by joshuapurcell; 05-11-2012 at 01:59 PM.
what? seriously? faonboys again?
this competition is good. if clang becomes better than gcc, i'll switch to it.
but for now, gcc seems the best run-time speed wise
this is the beauty of FOSS - we have the choice.