@begsby it does. GPL doesn't limit how things are used given the sources are supplied to the users. it's perfectly fine to put something using GPL software into a nuke.

@bonifartius @begsby Pretty much, if any license starts to restrain freedom then it's a slippery slope towards full proprietary, any people proposing any sort of stuff like that are tools to the corpos and co.

@mangeurdenuage @bonifartius is see, i was hooked to a real tin foil theory. But looks like im not the only one who likes the idea. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary

@begsby @bonifartius
The thing is that you also have too look into the perspective of this.
The GPL is a legal contract. It has no god like power and people using it don't often want to emulate god like power thought automated omnipotence/omnipresence unlike proprietary entities who does that at every level, thus punishment can be instantaneous in those case unlike people who violate the GPL or other permissive licensing.

Meaning that evil people will do evil with the software even if it's GPL, but that doesn't mean the license shouldn't be enforced when people are caught doing so.
That's what I see Louis Rossmann fail to understand by wanting to do his own proprietary license on his side.

@mangeurdenuage @bonifartius

hostile take over and relicensing as motivation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLq5e3W7rZU

@iron_bug i still believe the example license header used by everyone allows for this scenario. the part i quoted specifically says "as published by the Free Software Foundation", so anyone who wants to do this needs to control the FSF.

after all, things are a conspiracy theory until they become reality :P

@bonifartius
>after all, things are a conspiracy theory until they become reality :P
And a lot of them have become reality in the past years.

@Suiseiseki good catch!