Fuck GPL3, that is all!

What license do you prefer?

@ctwx MIT

@runfrodorun GPL licensing something means that it has to stay open source right (or something)?

@linuxxx yes

@stop In that case I like GPL a lot. Thanks for the confirmation :)

@linuxxx if you add something to GPL software, it must be also under GPL.

@stop Yeah I know, that's fine with me :).Tbh I like both MIT and GPL

@runfrodorun sorry, i have read to fast.

Seems I've started something here,

My problems with GPL stem from the lack of freedom it offers the users of a piece of software. If I write a library I feel that my end user should be able to do what they want with it and not have their freedom to choose how to licence what they have written taken away from them.

A more permissive license that doesn't force itself upon everything it touches just makes more sense and is much better for adoption of open source in my opinion.

I have seen companies refuse to use any open source software just to be on the safe side. I think many companies would be willing to use and even contribute to open source if they were also free to not contaminate their code with GPL.

It's not freedom if it forces you to do something you don't want to do. Freedom is having the option not to share of you don't want to or to share on your own terms if you do.

@querellaMMXII I see your point and I understand it. Companies can choose MIT though, which is an open source and highly permissive license. I understand your view on freedom but I also think that GPL ensures that a piece of software should remain free at all costs (as in freedom). Although I am not sure what my opinion is on the fact that GPL projects must ONLY contain GPL licensed stuff, I think there need to be some licenses which make sure that you can keep software entirely open :).

Just my point of view!

@runfrodorun I wasn't exactly sure if what I said was correct but the fact that you seem at agree with me is a good sign!

@runfrodorun @linuxxx wait are you actually agreeing with me or not uhm Oo

@runfrodorun Actually I entirely agree.

@runfrodorun

I understand, I've just seen the complicated mess it can cause on the proprietary side of things.

I guess I sort of sit in the middle on this one, I support open source and even contribute in some cases but I also see the value in proprietary software too. GPL makes it hard for the two to live together and I think that's a shame.

What you have said about MIT and BSD compatibility may actually get me out of the problem I was having when I first posted the rant.

Does this mean I could write my software and license it under MIT or BSD and still use a GPL license?

The static vs dynamic linking thing is complicated from my point of view because it's python and it doesn't really get linked in the same sense as C or C++.

I think the biggest problem surrounding this whole topic is that developers aren't lawyers.

@querellaMMXII Although I see the value in closed source software (I am strongly against it but it works here and there) I just don't trust it in an age of mass surveillance/forced backdoors. :)

@runfrodorun Fair enough! I am currently looking at going into music production myself (exploring stuff like Ardour/BitWig). Going to try to make this happen on Linux :).

@runfrodorun

I'm not looking at writing proprietary code in this case I will release the source. However I don't wish to enforce GPL on anyone that wants to make use of my code in the future.

I write code for a living and it's not always possible to write free software.

For this project I'm looking at just importing a python library so I guess I might be ok.