🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@masterofthetiger@theres.life
What I mean is that GPL serves as a mechanism for the authors to be able to release their own code in a proprietary distribution while preventing others from doing the same. In other words GPL is extremely restrictive to others but those restrictions do not apply to the author.

This allows you to release a GPL open-source version, a fork which is entierly properitary as well, but prevent other authors from doing the same. This allows you to create market dominance for yourself.

This is why one of the best arguments for using GPL is for those who wish to release their software as a proprietary release as well, usually modified.

@Algot

@masterofthetiger@theres.life
Yes you'd put a link to the project in your copyright notice or license header, which is usually standard practice.

As i said earlier if you wish to make your own project proprietary or otherwise just dont wish to have your own code used in proprietary projects in any way then GPL is a fine solution to that.

My argument has never been that it has no valid use as a license. Only that I dont view it as free nor in the spirit of open-source.

@Algot

@masterofthetiger@theres.life
Include means it needs to be included in itsa current form and location. This is done through use of the word "this" rather than "a copy of this"

@Algot

@masterofthetiger@theres.life @Algot MIT is the only exception in the sense that the language is vague. Both Apache and BSD are explicit and thus preferred.

However the wording even the MIT is such that anywhere you post that license header it must be retained "this permission shall be included". So they still require it to retain the copyright permission wherever it is used. It doesnt say "A copy of the above notice" it explicitly states THE above notice.

@masterofthetiger@theres.life
Thats simply incorrect of hte 3 most popular permissive licenses all of them require you to keep all attributions and make no distinction between code output and source in that regard.

BSD just happens to take it one step further and say you must add the attribution to the documentation if it doesnt already exist there.

@Algot

@masterofthetiger@theres.life
Yes if you specifically dont want your code to never be used in proprietary software then GPL is great for that. I've even released under a gpl like license before for that reason.

I just dont consider GPL free (in the sense of freedom) nor within the spirit of open source. But it does have its uses.

@Algot

@masterofthetiger@theres.life
You said "most don't require visible permission" please be specific, which licenses?

Of the three most popular BSD, MIT, and Apache all attribution and copyright notices must be retained, it says nothing about if. it need be retained in the output or not but it is implied that it must be retained everywhere, including the output.

In fact in the BSD it goes a step further and dictates that even if the copyright/attribution is not presented explicitly to the end-user it must be provided witht he material distributed with the software (such as documentation or other material).

Either way in the top 3 permissive licenses it is clear they cant just make your old code proprietary. It **must** remain open and a reference to it must be retained with the software.

@Algot

@masterofthetiger@theres.life
Most permissive licenses require you to keep all copyright notices, license headers and references to original authors/project.

As such as long as you publicly display a link to the original project and authors then any derivative work an not remove these references. So effectively no, they can not pass on the modified code without making the original open-source variant known.

@Algot