@AnneRanch said in General question about open source development:

@JKSH So if the "author" has no obligation to publish - how does that "protect" the user ?
If it is bad product I can see the "protection" , but it should be up to the user to decide.

In any case - there is something amiss in the concept of "free licensing" - it is like writing a book and not publish it. Silly.

You'll find there's nothing amiss when you understand its goals.

If an application/executable is a house, and the source code is the blueprints, then a traditional commercial license is like a property developer that says: "Pay me money and you can live in this house. But you are not allowed to look at the blueprints, you are not allowed to renovate or repair the house, and you are not allowed to replace even a single lightbulb."

Now, suppose someone invents a fancy home automation system.

If this system is released under the GPL, it says to the property developer, "You can use my system in the houses that you build. In return, you must give your buyers the blueprints (including the schematics of my automation system) and give them permission to renovate/repair/replace all parts of the house." If this system is released under the Lesser GPL, it says to the property developer, You can use my system in the houses that you build. In return, you must give your buyers access to the schematics of my automation system and give them permission to tinker with and replace the automation system.

So, when the inventor releases the home automation system under the GPL/LGPL, they are encouraging property developers to give the homebuyers more freedom.