kawaii_rms.png
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".
This wasn't possible with the GPL as it would need to free the whole repo at once.
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.
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.
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.
