161–170 of 431 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That led eventually to AGPL, a kind of fork of GPL Yes. > but outside FSF Initially. The current version was published by the FSF in 2007.
I wasn't clear. The reciprocal licenses that require sharing alike, with or without distribution, came from outside FSF.
I think the distinction between "download and run" software vs. "libraries used to build new programs" should always be stated in this GPL vs. not discussion. For "download and run" software, having it be GPL IMO doesn't limit too much who will ultimately be using your software. But if you are writing a programming library that would be used to create new software, GPL and even the LGPL will scare away a lot of comme…
I like others to have the same opportunity, so GPL it is, even for libraries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, is it really insightful? It just seems straightforwardly wrong to me. Nazism is a viewpoint. Does progress include that? I know I'm triggering Godwin's law here, but if you're literally saying that progress includes ALL viewpoints, you're really opening yourself up to including some really ridiculously outlandish ideals.
There's an addendum, regarding speaking out against actual nazism https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/06/19/27874178/godwins...
First, I'm not a lawyer, but I've always seen the MIT license as being more "free", whereas the GPL is more "fair". Both licenses are pretty much the same for users of the code. Where they differ is that the MIT license gives you the freedom to make an awesome change to the free code you were given, and add it to your closed source application with no obligation to give those enhancements you made to the code to anyo…
I am a lawyer, and I really appreciated your "free" versus "fair" line. One tidbit on the GPLs: They require you to share alike if you share the software with others, but do not require you to share the software with others. You can make changes and larger programs entirely for your own or your company's internal use, and not share anything. The GPLs mention this explicitly, and implement it using concepts like "dist…
To me, GPL feels more like holding a legal gun to your head and say "You used my code, now play fair". It's not your Mum asking you nicely to share your toys with your brother. But then MIT is too far the other way where it's your Mum saying that if you don't want to give any toys to your brother even though he gave you a bunch then that's your ethical code and you have to live with it.
I wish there was a license that did feel like the "it's the right thing to do" argument without the threat, but I just don't know how you'd achieve that. Even something where you license the core as GPL and then the majority supporting libraries as MIT doesn't feel right to me.
As a lawyer, do you have any ideas along these lines?
If so, then this is what people mean when they say the GPL is a "general public virus".
I can't relate to this at all, I feel like I went the opposite way. I started out putting all of my work out under GPL but slowly realized how restrictive and demanding such a license actually is, I think public domain is the license that provides the most good to the world as a whole. It enriches everyone, even those who I don't necessarily agree with. It is a much more powerful statement in my view to provide work…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If that means a professor wants to put the work into their course and help to instruct a class with it, that is great too. Just to be very clear, neither the MIT nor GPL licenses prevent this.
Under a strict interpretation of the GPL, a student who copied code out of a textbook to use in a commercial project would be infringing the license. I've never come across this with GPL code, but I've been a bit uncomfortable about reading Numerical Recipes too closely because their code is restrictively licensed.
(Small snippets are obviously not covered by copyright.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But at a certain point you just have to realize that there are differing points of view, that is just the way things go, and "progress" includes all of them. This is really insightful, to me. Worth keeping in mind in today’s world.
Eh, is it really insightful? It just seems straightforwardly wrong to me. Nazism is a viewpoint. Does progress include that? I know I'm triggering Godwin's law here, but if you're literally saying that progress includes ALL viewpoints, you're really opening yourself up to including some really ridiculously outlandish ideals.
Flat-Earther-ism is a viewpoint.
Anti-vaxxer-ism is a viewpoint.
Can somebody clarify for me - if you write 9,990 lines of proprietary code and include 10 lines of GPL code, the whole 10,000 becomes GPL, right? And then the whole 10,000 becomes public property according to the GPL so the person who wrote the 9,990 lines of proprietary code starves to death and dies because you can't monetize public property, and our food system only accepts money in exchange for food, not "good de…
And I "starve to death and die" because yes, in this world you can't just take things that other people have made and use them in whatever way you like -- if you can't obey the terms that someone else has given for the use of their creative work, then don't use their work.