[question] why neovim isn't distributed under the GPLv3 license?

[ninrod]

Just want to know the decisions that led the team to pick up Apache instead of GPLv3.

[justinmk]

Why choose GPLv3?

(We discussed this at length in the early days, and those discussions are available; so I'm ready to sit back and hear the compelling reasons for choosing GPL which were not presented at the time.)

[mhinz]

It's Apache 2.0 / Vim license, not MIT. Personally I like that choice, because no one understands the GPL.

[jamessan]

See #878 and #370 for previous discussions.

[ninrod]

I think choosing GPL over other licenses could only be appreciated in light of the philosophical line layed down by stallman in this post: cang vs free software. Mainly:

For GCC to be replaced by another technically superior compiler that
defended freedom equally well would cause me some personal regret, but
I would rejoice for the community's advance.  The existence of LLVM is
a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not
copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so
that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as
much as it helps us.

[jamessan]

There is a world of difference between the leverage licensing a compiler under the GPL provides vs. licensing an editor under the GPL. While I understand and empathize with the sentiment in that post, I don't think it's a very applicable argument in this case.

[ZyX-I]

This issue was already discussed as pointed by @jamessan and such discussions tend to generate a lot of flame. So please move to those issues (and first check arguments there), I am closing and locking this one.