Would you consider a software loicence that is free – meaning it secures all of the four essential freedoms and a future for hacker children – but which remains incompatible with GNU GPL on copyleft level more immoral than any GNU GPL loicence despite GNU GPL doing the exact same thing to non-GPL compatible software? cc @r and @nepfag in particular
kawaii_rms.png
@roka @nepfag @r If you mean the CDDL, then it's a great license.
It protect all the freedoms and it annoys the GNUs.

@lanodan

GPL is a weapon of war against software copyright. CDDL seems closer to LGPL which is just a strategic retreat. Perpetual retreat, no matter how strategic, will never win. The only thing annoying about it is people who completely miss the point and think that is an equivalent, and that the viral nature of GPL is some sort of an accidental/pointless oversight.
It's like choosing a nerf gun over a real one, cause it's much safer, lighter and more ergonomic. Makes sense in certain contexts, but doesn't mean they are equivalent, or even "same but different".

@r @nepfag @roka

@namark @lanodan @r @nepfag I know that, it just annoys me that there is a possibility of someone preventing me from doing what I want in case of a takeover and hostile reloicencing. No step on 8 year old loli, hisssss.

@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 @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 :cirnoForReals:
Follow

@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

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.