@roka

I guess I'm missing some context, cause I can't imagine what would constitute a hostile takeover, that will prevent you from doing what you want.

@r @nepfag @lanodan

@namark @roka @r @lanodan RMS lost the FSF, the GNU Project and his scolarships because some thot cried wolf.


If that's not a hostile takeover then I don't know what is.

@nepfag @namark @r @roka Come on, RMS knew this shit would happen, a lot of jobs where lost because of this kind of shit into GNU/FSF.

@lanodan @namark @r @roka He has autism, he acted like an autists. RMS did nothing wrong.

@nepfag @namark @r @roka No, this shit is being basically an ass, nothing that has to do with autism at this point, I literally studied this thing.

@namark @r @nepfag @lanodan I posted it elsewhere in this thread. Basically some GNU GPL enthusiasts taking your code released under a GPL-compatible licence, relicencing it to GPL and blocking you from taking those changes back unless you also relicence. As you said, GPL is a weapon against proprietary/unethical software but pulling stunts like this is extremely rude. Even GNU specifically discourages that but I've seen that happen on shithub

@roka @namark @nepfag @r Stuff like Hyperbola forking OpenBSD and turning it GPL is also something that happens often.

@lanodan @namark @nepfag @r I'd probably just pull a loicence specifically for the offending project, simply out of spite. It certainly is possible in my jurisdiction (even with GPL which tries to pretend it's perpetual)

@lanodan @namark @nepfag @r re hyperbola, I just remembered: wasn't it just the new additions being relicensed? It's not that bad then.

@roka @namark @nepfag @r It's basically as bad, it means that any patches they'll do will not be mergeable back to OpenBSD, it's quite a hostile fork in this regard.

@roka

I see what you mean now. It is hostile towards your sense of ownership of the project, not your freedom, or the freedom of the users.
I guess It's a choice you have to make regarding what is more important, your personal gain(control over the project in the long term), or freedom of the community en large. I would say that the former is a (perhaps subconscious) step towards copyright and away from copyleft, if taken in isolation and not in the "strategic retreat" kind of context. Next logical step in same direction would be to go proprietary.

@r @nepfag @lanodan

@namark @r @nepfag @lanodan both CDDL and MPL licences, which this was about, are already free software licences according to Free Software Definition, guaranteeing the four freedoms. I don't see the point of trying to force the original project to switch to GPL at the risk of being ejected from development (or being left behind) other than malice. And what's the point of free software if you're wielding your libre licence as a weapon against other free software projects? Again, dual licencing is a good solution here – and one that is not completely antisocial.

@roka

A license that just guarantees(as you say) the freedoms is not enough. This was understood by people who wrote even GPL 1, but not by anyone ever since apparently. It's not about living in piece with other more permissive licenses or proprietary software, it's about eradicating proprietary software. If your free software project stands in the way, then it needs to move. Why do you think apple and nvidia have proprietary toolchains now, on par with gcc? Cause llvm. Totally free software, totally cool by itself, but also totally enabling proprietary software. That is not ok for free software movement. GPL is not the a bible to live by, it's a very specific tool designed to fight proprietary software, and as such it will not be stopped by one simple level of indirection. If there is need, it will be used against other free software licenses. If it were up to people who wrote GPL software copyright and licenses, free software or not, wouldn't exist at all.

Look at the hellscape that is software industry today, look at hardware and other industries following suit, and tell me some rando's personal sense of ownership of their project (free software or not) is more important than software freedom.

There can be many specific examples where blindly applying/enforcing GPL might not a very good idea, but that doesn't mean that CDDL or MPL, or dual licensing is better in general (or even in particular, copared to LGPL).

@r @nepfag @lanodan

@lanodan

So it was better for some purpose which makes it better for all purposes? Seems to me It's basically LGPL, except incompatible with GPL, which means it can't be made stronger if necessary, which is an unnecessary restriction. You still can't say it's same as GPL, or that the difference is just annoying to some people, cause of their nonsensical sense of competition(or whatever else the implication was), if you understand the point of GPL.

@r @nepfag @roka

@namark @r @nepfag @roka I do not see the world in one dimension, the CDDL is better for some purposes and yes, GPL-incompatibility can have some nice side-effects or some bad ones.
Also never said it was the same as the GPL, it's much more like the MPL as it's based on it. I said it protects your freedoms, which isn't something that *only* the GPL can do.

@lanodan

Well I would say your comment had a strong implication that the only difference is that it "annoys the GNUs"(by itself, for no reason), but I'm glad you clarified.

Examples of where incompatibility with GPL is beneficial? And I mean not for your personal gain, or to "annoy the GNUs", but for the freedom of the entire community. And I mean software freedom, not freedom to do whatever they want in general, or any other kind of philosophical interpretation of the word.

@r @nepfag @roka