I disagree with this quote for the sole reason that I don’t consider proprietary developers a group of people that we need and advantage over. My goals for open sourcing Adapt are two-fold:
- Provide cutting edge technology to the community
- Expose the technology to a community of people that may improve upon the technology.
By taking a stance against “proprietary developers”, you’re limiting your pool of potential contributors. Sure, there are a large group of proprietary developers that may take the software and contribute nothing back; that is a risk with all OSS, regardless of license. I am a proprietary developer in my professional life, and in that capacity actively avoid GPL code, as is in the best interest of my employer. However, that also prevents me from using, extending, or contributing to a large number of codebases that could benefit from another set of eyes.
In the end, I settled on LGPLv3 (and yes, as donor/maintainer of the code, this was my personal call) because I wanted more people to use and contribute. If Adapt ends up in the bowels of Oracle’s personal assistant somewhere down the road, I’ll consider it a sign of success for the technology, and not a fatal loss to the community.