@StaticallyTypedRice @freemo I'd rather you share that you made it better with bacon, but if you just want to eat bacon on it without telling me, I don't have a problem with it - and my benefit from getting that feedback is outweighed by the detriment of legitimizing copyright.

@mewmew @StaticallyTypedRice @freemo mewmew this is a bad take.

Wait I thought you didn't write software?

@kick @StaticallyTypedRice @freemo I do write some software, just not linked to this identity.

@mewmew @StaticallyTypedRice @freemo Ah, I see.

@mewmew @StaticallyTypedRice @freemo But yeah I mean anyone who actually cares about whether or not copyright is valid and which licenses legitimize it would realize that the MIT, Apache and BSD licenses utilize copyright to a great extent, as well. If going that route you might as well do a public domain dedication + a backup CC0 license.

@kick @StaticallyTypedRice @freemo I do - Unlicense is my go-to and I also use CC0 for media.

@mewmew

Sorry to eavesdrop on your conversation, and intrude uninvited, but I smelled whiffs of "copyright is wrong -> GPL uses copyright -> GPL is wrong", and I would like to remind you that the way GPL uses it is - to troll the system, to twist and turn copyright around to make it destroy itself. And it is upfront about it, it doesn't try to pretend that copyright is good. There is no reason to not use it as a tool to achieve your goals today, in practise. Once you achieved the no copyright utopia, GPL will just be harmlessly deprecated.

@kick @StaticallyTypedRice@mastodon.social @freemo

@mewmew For the purposes of this you can assume the most vicious type of GPL.

You are avoiding my question... and basically saying "everyone does this therefore it's right".

Also I never seen of a project that adopted GPL(understanding the point, not by mistake or misunderstanding) drop GPL.

@kick @StaticallyTypedRice@mastodon.social @freemo

@namark

There are TONS of major projects developed en-masse that were forced to drop GPL due to its viral nature and has seen been replaced by a permissive licensed alternative, usually consisting of a large portion of th original developers. But of course due to the viral nature of hte GPL they were forced to rewrite their own code from scratch and waste time.

I'm suprised with it being so common you never heard of it, you must be a bit out of touch with the community. The move from X11 to xorg years back was specifically to drop the GPL license for example.

@mewmew @kick @StaticallyTypedRice@mastodon.social

@freemo @namark @mewmew @StaticallyTypedRice

> The move from X11 to Xorg years back was specifically to drop the GPL license for example.

That's a lie, and an incredibly stupid one at that. The move was from xfree86 to X.org, not X11 (which is the protocol), because xfree86 was incompatible with the GPLv2, and relicensed in a way that made it less compatible with the GPLv2. X.org was a fork to avoid those license changes.

@kick

Yes your correct it was from XFree, my mistake. And no its not a lie what you just said is 100% what I said

"because xfree86 was incompatible with the GPLv2,"

Yea because of its VIRAL nature it wasnt compatible with permissive licenses.

Yes the XOrg foundation after that made a strict policy that all their software must use permissive licenses and copyleft (like the GPL) licenses would no longer be permitted. Now XOrg is no longer GPL in any of its core tools.

@mewmew @StaticallyTypedRice@mastodon.social @namark

@freemo @mewmew @StaticallyTypedRice @namark xfree86 didn't have a viral nature, it had a BSD-like advertising clause. That's not copyleft, that's an advertising clause. The BSD license is usually cited as one of the most permissive licenses, and the advertising clause is in it, but not in the GPL. No sharing of source code was required.

@kick XFree used to be a mix of GPL components and BSD like components, the virality of the GPL became an issue, at one point they tried to modify the BSD components to make them compatible with the GPL however there were still concerns about the compatibility and now the XOrg foundation policy is to completely reject GPL components from its distribution and ensure none of the code they distribute contains GPL components anymore. You can no longer contribute your own code to the distribution releases if it contains GPL licensing structure.