The way I understand software licenses.

Cool bro MIT: Free to do whatever you want as long as you include a copy of the license and you can't hold the original accountable.

fair dude Apache 2.0: Like the MIT license but more bureaucratic and few more minor things you need to keep track of.

scumbag GPL: free as in the same way that prison food is free. used by java in gotcha cases as a source of revenue because no one understands java licensing. Often used in the form of a deterrent so you never dare to open up the github page.

scumbag GPL who, realising they have no friends, becomes slightly less of a dick LGPL: But please stop using this and use our more restrictive "freedom" license.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

  • 4
  • 15
    The only people who hate the GPL are those who want to grab OSS SW and make a closed source project out of it, but can't do that.

    In other words, parasites. Obviously, parasites hate it when they can't freeload.
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop I'm sure that's what they teach you prison.
  • 2
    Let's hear what you say about AGPL? 😉 That one is really tricky!
  • 2
    @vintprox Isn't that just GPL for websites?
  • 0
    @gibus My point is that you have no choice over license of distribution, but they certainly have different use cases for you as of contributor. AGPL is plain stupid compared to GPL.
    I appreciate it when sources of supposedly powerful library for altering file system and hardware are kept in genuine form, at least, to ensure if it's 100% safe for production environment by reviewing the causes first instead of consequences (declarative vs imperative).
    MIT and sisters are the safe choice for you as of maintainer that doesn't mind hundreds of forks/clones with their own specifics and even business antics (let's be honest here, that happens).
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop sometimes I wonder if comments like this are just bait for someones helicopter list.

    if it is, you deserve a slow clap.
  • 1
    @vintprox GPL doesn't necessarily keep code clean other than acting as a deterrent for anyone who doesn't want to GPL.

    That's my main issue with the GPL is as I said it's restricting prison like nature. And not from a "you must release your source" point of view, because get a little give a little is a fair point of view and one I can get behind.

    What I can't get behind is the fact that I write a program, and some dependency of a dependency is GPL... great I honestly feel like I've found out I have herpes. I want to release my code under a permissive license, but I know that I can't without purging my code of it.
  • 1
    He and the 13 others are just brainwashed by the FSF, they just propagate this notion that 'anyone against GPL is going to steal your code and sell it behind your back'. But fun fact... you can just compile and give your code away.. for free.

    The FSF continue to spout the lie about how their license means "FREEDOM" (despite being one of the most restrictive) and chanting their marketing slogan "the corporations are out to get your code ooooOoooO, corporate stooges everywhere". Without even stopping to consider that maybe not everyone against the FSF and GPL is against open source.

    Fun fact Linus Torvalds... actually speaks against the FSF and wouldn't upgrade to GPLv3 because of the restrictions. But nah, dudes just a corporate stooge right?
  • 0
    @gibus Then do not use the library that's under GPL 😉 It isn't like maintainers of GPL licensed product specifically pulled you in relicensing prison, it's your consent to redistribute contents under same conditions when you take thing.
    And to prevent GPL dependency to suddenly sneak in your project there are even tools for that. One would be to perform recursive search in deps for GNU strings attached, but the easiest - just don't use libraries under GPL.
  • 2
    @vintprox It's literally the first thing I look for in any dependency.
  • 0
    @gibus one modification to the gpl that I could get behind is: you can modify it and stay private but it starts a clock ticking - after say 3-5 years your modifications must be made public. this counts for all modifications made within the first 12 month period (so no slow walking that shit). And modifications that would be obvious or natural cant be used to constrain others from making the same changes in the existing open source (prevents corps from trying to lockdown and kill projects).

    Best of both worlds: you get both commercial development abd the support and market that comes with that, as well as support from open source contributors, while not constraining good faith users or *advantaging* bad faith actors.

    I could totally get behind something like that.
  • 1
    @Wisecrack The issue with redistributing FOSS under a restrictive license isn't that you're making money off of the software but that you're suddenly allowed to sue people over making the same modifications, thus blocking a certain development path from the software. It's on my would-be-nice-to-do list to fully understand the GPL and start using it, because the mere fact that I didn't think of a feature shouldn't allow you to call dibs on that singular feature - however obvious - and ban me from adding it to the original.
Add Comment