@toast oh please tell me more, my hero pirate haxor politocultural revolutionary megaidol, how many binary blobs have you reverse engineered? how many firmware signing keys have you leaked?
how many of your "do the right thing CC0" projects can compete in any real "market" today?
GPL is a solution that can be deployed en masse today, and "I don't care about reality, no law is freedom" types like you along with the straight up "proprietary software is freedom" types are the last line of defense for proprietary software monopolies.
@georgia
Nice try pretending that you looked up the definition of deploy in the dictionary. The point was that GPL can effectively compete with (and eventually directly eliminate) proprietary software today, while the permissive licenses can't.
The point of the mocking question was that the answers would be pointless. It's a lost battle and those are not acts of heroism.
One hardly has to look up the definition of a common word to know it doesn’t apply O.o
You flat can’t “deploy GPL”. You can apply the license, but that’s hardly the same thing. As to to GPL licensed software effectively competing with and eventually directly eliminating proprietary software.. Good Luck. With That. And I say that as someone who likes the GPL or at least the ideas contained therein. I won’t say it won’t ever happen. What I will say is people have been saying it was going to happen for 30 years now and.. Yeah, Windows is still the number one desktop OS by leaps and bounds, which sucks, but it’s reality.
Number two? MacOS under a BSD core. Both blow chunks and Linux may over take MacOS, sorta, in a few years if things keep going the way they have but still. As to the non-desktop space, like it or not there will likely always be a place for proprietary software. The motivations to keep various things secret are just too great in various fields for that to change.
Like open source. Try to convince people to use it over alternatives. That’s all fine. But not everyone will agree and not everyone wants to open source their software. That’s their choice too and they’re free to make it.
The point of the mocking question was that the answers would be pointless. It’s a lost battle and those are not acts of heroism.
Are you often in the habit of asking pointless questions then? 
Look it it now than and try again. The word fits perfectly there. And make a habit of doing that before attempting to criticize wording.
People have been saying for 30 years that if everyone adopts GPL (not specific versions just the basic principle of operation) proprietary software will be defeated. Nobody gets it, they think it's just "dun steal ma project" license, and when it comes time to act upon it (like upgrade for v2 to v3, or even AGPL) they all back down, showing that they don't care about anything but the success of their own projects and the moneys. That's hardly a criticism of the approach and you are not offering any alternatives either.
And of course you arrive at the conclusion that proprietary software is necessary. Why does this happen every time I talk to GPL critics?
The questions had a point, to render the answers pointless. It's just a single level of indirection, come on, you can do it.
And of course you arrive at the conclusion that proprietary software is necessary. Why does this happen every time I talk to GPL critics?
Irony.. Let me quote myself from earlier: “And I say that as someone who likes the GPL or at least the ideas contained therein.”
Also, again quoting myself from earlier: “As to the non-desktop space, like it or not there will likely always be a place for proprietary software.”
I personally don’t think such is necessary. However, I’m not so myopic to think that my view is everyone’s view.
As to not offering an alternative, I wasn’t criticizing the GPL or its approach as goals and thus, no need to offer an alternative.
That said, this is clearly going in circles and likely will continue to do so. Thus, the only logical thing to do at this point is to break the cycle. Have a good day/night/whatever
@trickster
FOSS is not anti-corporate, FOSS is FOSS, stop bringing your politics into it. Corporations can compete with each other and that's good. It's not about you individually owning the wolrd, that's a wet dream.
@georgia @wolfie @toast
@namark @trickster @georgia @toast Uhm, I may be wrong on this as it’s been a while since I’ve read on it but you might want to read up on the history of the thing you’re speaking on. A great deal of the original purpose of the GPL, HURD, and linked/related things was as a strike against the corporate owned and controlled Unix of the time. While that’s not necessarily explicitly anti-corporation, it’s certainly not pro and at best it’s evolved into a “Okay, you can exist too I suppose” sort of thing.
@wolfie Being agains current or past corporations that held or hold monopolies in software "markets" does not mean being anti-corporate in general.
@georgia @toast @trickster
@trickster @namark @georgia @toast
At most? A failsafe in the event that they, whomever one defines ‘they’ as, turn truly “evil”. While forking is hard, it is (legally) possible and aside from preventing one from keeping the name, one cannot be crushed for forking it. See MySQL/MariaDB for an example. Oracle absolutely would have crushed MariaDB if they had been able to, but they can’t so they just have to stew and hate life. Which is good, because seriously screw Oracle
@namark @toast @georgia Hmmm… GPL is not a solution or a product and thus isn’t “deploy-able”. The statement doesn’t even make sense as other Open Source licenses are attached to many widespread things as well so.. what are you even trying to say there?
oh please tell me more, my hero pirate haxor politocultural revolutionary megaidol, how many binary blobs have you reverse engineered? how many firmware signing keys have you leaked? how many of your “do the right thing CC0” projects can compete in any real “market” today?
Randomly jumping into a thread and asking/demanding someone’s creds without offering your own. Bad form. Bad form.