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.
@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.
There are TONS of major projects developed en-masse that were forced to drop GPL due to its viral nature and has seen been replaced by a permissive licensed alternative, usually consisting of a large portion of th original developers.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.
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.
Yes I wasn't aware of that, and I am out of touch with many things. It comes with a benefit of having my own arguments and not referring to others and saying "they are important people and they did it".
Many big projects were license under GPL by misunderstanding. Many big and famous group working on FOSS software, care about money more than freedom. That includes linux if you want an even bigger example. That doesn't change the argument.
I wouldn't blame someone for pursuing success or wealth in current industry and having to "play by the rules". I would criticize them however if they say they are doing it for freedom, when it is clear that they are not.
Seeking money doesnt make you bad and it is no garuntee you are anti-freedom. If someone takes my open source product and adds something of value on top of it and wants to sell the product they created, let them. I'm not so bitter that I am going to wrongfully mistake that as a bad thing.
I didn't say anything makes anyone bad. What I'm trying to say is if you value freedom over money, you'll use GPL in todays climate. It sacrifices money for freedom, and the only reason to not use it is if that sacrifice is unacceptable for you, for whatever reasons. Could be good reasons, could be bad, but nevertheless that's what you are doing. Success in current climate of domination by proprietary software(and the mindset that it is natural) vs freedom.
I keep asking you to explain how exactly GPL cripples you, unless you have intentions to go proprietary. You ignore my question and go on tangents that eventually lead you to "I explicitly want to make(or allow someone else to make) my project proprietary, and I think it's fine because most other people think it's fine". There is nothing else that GPL restricts.
It's like a license on a gun saying "you may not use it to participate in duels to death, unless to stop the duel", in a society where duals to death are leagal and are the accepted norm. And you are arguing that not allowing duels to death is against freedom.
I explained several times. It prevents you from including in free and open-source projects with incompatible licenses (virality).
We covered this with the XFree example where they had to bar all GPL code from their distribution because its viral nature made it legally impossible to incude the software in the same package as other permissive licenses.
Yes, the gun also doesn't allow you just change the slide that has the license statement printed on it, and suddenly make it legal in a duel. It's even more vicious, it says that if you use any part of it as a spare for another gun, the license applies to that gun too. It's very mean because it's very much against duels.
Again I'm not familiar with that specific example, but from what others have described here, it seems that the new owners of the factory were ok with duels, and it was very painful for them to recall all the existing guns, and remake the tooling to not engrave the "no-duels" license.
I don't see the argument. It's good that it was hard for them. And it's sad that for whatever reasons they are ok with duels(or can't afford to not be ok with duels).
I didn't say money is evil. In fact many times I said, that I won't blame any individual for not sacrificing money for freedom. I said money is not freedom, and that I would criticize someone who pursuing money and success, claims to pursue freedom.
Of course, in perfect society where most people are like you. In current reality there is an obvious problem that you choose to ignore for some reason.
I won't press you anymore on this subject, and I'm sorry if it felt confrontational, I get too carried away sometimes.
@namark
Most of us who use permissive license uphold freedom first, money is secondary. I see no reason one would need to prevent someone from making money off a piece of software before you think it becomes free.
Freedom is, as the name implies, not restricting what a person can do.
@kick @mewmew @StaticallyTypedRice@mastodon.social