I would understand if Canonical want a new cow to milk, but why are developers even agreeing to this? Are they out of their minds?? Do they actually want companies to steal their code? Or is this some reverse-uno move I don’t see yet? I cannot fathom any FOSS project not using the AGPL anymore. It’s like they’re painting their faces with “here, take my stuff and don’t contribute anything back, that’s totally fine”
Honestly it’s probably just because so many devs are involved more in their code and don’t want to worry about the nuances and headaches involved in licensing. MIT is still open source.
I guess I can’t really fault that. Developers not interested in the license they use to publish code baffles me
Speaking for myself, it’s because future monetization can be easier under mit when using a foss utility and private code.
My project would not exist at all unless there were ways to make money off it.
True, others can also use that same code too, in the exact same way, but that requires quite the investment, and those of us that are doing this are banking on not getting the interest of a monopoly in that way. We are competing against other small businesses who have limited resources.
At the same time the free part can get a boost by the community.
I comment a lot in politics here, and am sometimes an ass, so cannot name this project
not sure how it would be more difficult to make money using gpl tools
For our use case, this makes the most sense.
I’m not at all sure about the larger trend you noticed, but I know a non trivial number are doing it for the same reasons
Could you elaborate on those reasons, please? I’m not sure what you mean.
The mit license allows a mix of public and commercial code run by the same company, with minimal legal issues. One can use other tactics I am sure, but this one seems good when the commercial code absolutely needs the public code .
I think some confusion here can be resolved by stating this is anti foss, taking advantage of foss, it is capitalism taking advantage of having a good code base while making sure any contribution from outside the company is minimized. At the same time it gives my company absolute control over the private part.
Usually get into arguments here! I’m not defending it, but am saying open source would be less without.
I understand this may not be exactly how you meant your comment, but I think it’s important to clarify that free/libre software can also be commercial software, and in fact must allow commercial use in order to fit the Free Software Definition. It is probably easier to make lots of money with non-freely licensed software but I think contrasting “public” code with “commercial” code muddies the terminological waters a bit.
I like BSDs more than GPL just personal choice
Squeek, squack. Your opinion is whack
lol grow up
Sorry, but I or rather many hate your Opinion.
Its ok if you dislike my Opinion about that. But I will show you, that many dislike your Opinion with a little fun and humour.
I believe that this has nothing to do with growing up, but I think thats your opinion you can attempt to follow.
Lol even GNU and fsf failed at implementing gplv3 at all levels in Linux. And with gplv3 redhat gets awa with what they do. Also see recent agplv3 lawsuit. Gpl enforcement is real issue. If fsf wants why no create true copy left strong license no exceptions!
Bruh instead of all this speculation, you guys could have just looked it up.
https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/discussions/4358#discussioncomment-8027681
There is a big difference between what someone says they are doing vs why they are actually doing it
fyi: GNU coreutils are licensed GPL, not AGPL.
there is so much other confusion in this thread, i can’t even 🤦
Apple makes the source code to all their core utilities available? Nobody cares but they do.
Why do they?
They are BSD licensed (very similar to MIT). According to the crowd here, Apple would never Open Source their changes. Yet, in the real world, they do.
Every Linux distro uses CUPS for printing. Apple wrote that and gave it away as free software.
How do we explain that?
There are many companies that use BSD as a base. None of them have take the BSD utils “commercial”.
Why not?
Most of the forks have been other BSD distros. Or Chimera Linux.
How about OpenSSH?
It is MiT licensed. Shouldn’t somebody have embraced, extended, and extinguished it by now?
Why haven’t they?
Apple makes the source code to all their core utilities available
Apple makes the source code for many open source things they distribute available, but often only long after they have shipped binaries. And many parts of their OS which they developed in-house which could also be called “core utilities” are not open source at all.
Every Linux distro uses CUPS for printing. Apple wrote that and gave it away as free software.
Apple did not write cups.
It was was created by Michael R. Sweet in 1997, and was GPL-licensed and used on Linux distros before Mac OS X existed. Apple didn’t want to be bound by the GPL so they purchased a different license for it in 2002.
Later, in 2007 they bought the source code and hired msweet to continue its development, and at some point the license of the FOSS version was changed to “GNU General Public License (“GPL”) and GNU Library General Public License (“LGPL”), Version 2, with an exception for Apple operating systems.”
I loved this comment as much as a person is allowed to love it
“Commercial” is not the opposite of free/libre. In fact, GPL licensed software can be “taken commercial” with a guarantee that it will remain libre, whereas BSD-licensed software doesn’t have those guarantees.
I assume this is in reference to the rust coreutils being MIT-licensed. How would using GPL benefit them?
Improvements would be upstreamed. Not with MIT
GPL would not require that. It would only require publication of the source. There is no requirement to give back or even make your changes compatible with upstream.
True.
Though, you are probably going to have a much easier time implementing a change to your code that is present in a company’s published code, than you would trying to reverse-engineer a binary.
Sharing of the code I would consider “giving back” in it of itself.
Yes, publication of the source is enough. However, you are correct and I should have worded it better. In practice, publishing the source allows the developers of the software to make improvements unhindered by licensing and other IP-based hindrances which are otherwise present in closed-source software
Maybe there could be another reason why people choose MIT to begin with:
When you start a new repo on github it makes suggestions which license to use, and I bet many people can’t be arsed to think about it and just accept what they’re offered. [My memory is a little patchy since I very rarely use github anymore, but I definitely remember something like this.] And maybe github tends to suggest MIT.
That said, please undestand that many, many git platforms exist and there is no reason at all to choose one of the two that actually have the word git in them.
I can’t believe professional developers choose MIT because they can’t be arsed to look at the license choices
Well professional developers are often employed by companies that want make use of open source code to sell their proprietary code. It seems more likely to me that those companies will instruct their developers not to work on any GPL code rather than some big ideological shift in the individual developers.
I can’t believe professional developers choose MIT because they can’t be arsed to look at the license choices
Have you worked with many professional developers?
At work, yes
Well, my experiences with my coworkers would lead me to pretty much exactly the opposite conclusion: the majority would probably intentionally avoid the GPL, if they even care at all.
Why do they not care? And why would they avoid GPL?
Why do they not care?
Because, for many of them, they don’t have any reason to. In other words, privilege. Copyleft licensing is a subversive, anti-establishment thing, and software engineers are predominantly people who benefit from the established power structures. Middle/upper class white men (I’m included in that category, by the way). There’s basically no pressure for them to rock the boat.
And why would they avoid GPL
Because many of them are “libertarian” ideologues who have a myopic focus on negative liberty (as opposed to the positive variety).
Look, I understand if your boss tells you to not write Open-source/only use MIT so they can profit off of it later on. But for the people who have a choice, why wouldn’t they? I don’t see how it hurts their bottom line.
I’m middle class and here I am raging on Lemmy about software licenses LMAO
Ah, OK. No, of course not. I was thinking more about hobby developers.
But somebody else already pointed it out: MIT makes a project more attractive for investors. Follow the $£€
I think many hobby developers also see “hobby” developing as part of their career, so they would happily try and have their hobby align with future employment possibilities. Since companies avoid GPL, those devs will rather choose a license that is more attractive to those potential employers when they see their portfolio.
If it is solely for investors, then I understand. However I’m saddened to think that altruism in software has gone to the gutter
Is giving away your software in a way that doesn’t use a copyleft license, not altruistic? Seems like a pretty narrow definition.
Altruism towards shareholders, not the open-source community
And they are mutually exclusive, in your eyes?
In this case, yes. If you were altruistic toward the community, shareholders could instruct devs to use it anyway so it works out for both groups. Doesn’t work the other way around
Does anyone use MPL anymore? Is it a decent middle ground or the worst of both worlds?
For me, my personal projects are generally MIT licensed. I generally don’t like “restrictions” on licenses, even if those “restrictions” are requiring others to provide their source and I want as many people to use my projects as possible, I don’t like to restrict who uses it, even if it’s just small/home businesses who don’t want to publish the updated source code.
With that said, though, I have been starting to come around more to AGPL these days.
I wohld agree, because you really downplay the scenario.
As soon as you accidentallt create something, which everyone starts to use or has an use case, then some Cooperation will copy that thing, make it better and make your community dissappear because there is the newer tool which you cant change the code of anymore and need to use a monthly subscription or something to even use.
So, it somehow seems like you’re gaslighting yourself by downplaying the use case.
Mostly it will be small buisnesses and hobbyists, which I would like to code for them too. Especially when they are nice and friendly. But as soon as Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon gets hands on it and sees a potential to squeeze money through it by destroying it, then they will surely do it.
This can happen.
The flip side is noone uses it. I’ve never worked at any company that allowed even lgpl code to be used. If it has a commercial license we’ll buy it, if not…find another tool.
Lawyers are terrified of gpl and will do anything to avoid going to court over it, including forcing you to rip code out and do a clean room rewrite.
I edited my comment to better and more fully reflect my thoughts. It’s hard to properly express myself when I’ve been as sick as I have been with bronchitis and possible pneumonia for the past 4 weeks.
Hopefully my comment now better reflects my thoughts.
Had bronchitis as a child nearly every few weeks for years. All gone but sucks to have it.
Get well soon.
Here’s a fun idea, let’s fork these MIT-based projects and licence them under the AGPL :-)
If I could code at the level that these people do, I definitely would. If I ever publish anything that I’ve written for myself it will never be MIT/BSD licensed
You could do that. MIT is a very free license.
Of course, that would only be a useful thing to do if you were also going to contribute to the code.
True, but the mere existence of an AGPL project that follows the MIT one might be enough to convince would-be contributors to choose our version instead.
It may also be more likely to be adopted by non-corporate Linux distros that favour the AGPL over MIT (Debian for example) which in turn could help make the AGPL version the dominant one.
Note that AGPL can take changes from MIT but MIT can’t take changes that are purely AGPL without following the AGPL.
So, as far as I can understand, any improvements done to the AGPL version cannot be carried over to the MIT version (without very painful and careful re-implementation / re-engineering). That alone would be a big advantage to the hypothetical AGPL fork.
It would be a bit of a legal nightmare, since it’s theoretically possible that, even without really knowing it, the same feature might be implemented the same way in both forks separately, and the MIT devs might have no sure way to prove they did not copy it. So this would be like walking on eggshells.
Thats the point of GPl licenses. You cant close source it.
MIT is a free and also heavy closed source friendly. GPL fixes the greed
Yes. Did I deny that?
Can anyone confirm or deny if what I said is wrong?
I get downvoted for stating one advantage an AGPL fork would have, and yet nobody seems to be disagreeing with what I said… *shrugs* 🤷
I worked on an oss library with an MIT license and my colleagues told me they with that instead of GPL was with GPL it basically forces anyone who uses the library to make everything in their project available.
Only if they make changes/improvements to the code. If it’s a library that is used then no, AFAIK you don’t need to. If everyone using GPL code had to make their entire project FOSS then TPLink and DLink wouldn’t have any market share. The only reason OpenWRT exists is because Linksys was forced to open up their code because they had illegally refrained from opensourcing their code, which was a great positive for the community
If you link to GPL library, your software has to be GPL. You are confusing it with LGPL. Though you can bypass this by making the library its own standalone app. Like let’s say FFmpeg which is just a frontend for libAV libraries. (ignore that these libraries are actually LGPL, so you can link to them.)
I think it’s more complicated than use, like something about being allowed to dynamically link to it but not statically, or something like that.
If you are using a GPL library that is statically linked to code with a different license the result is one binary that has inside both GPL and other license code, which would not be allowed under the GPL terms, because it requires that the binaries that use the source code must have their source code available in full (including other source and modifications that are part of the same binary).
The only case in which you don’t need to provide the source for GPL software is if you don’t actually distribute the binary to customers… private binaries do not have to be published with their source, as long as you never made the binaries public and never gave it to anyone else. Only when you give it to someone you need to provide the code.
This allows for a loophole in which if you are providing a service, then you can run the software privately in your private server without sharing the source code to the clients using the service, since they do not really run the server program although they indirectly benefit from its results. This is why the AGPL was created, since it has a clause to force also those offering services to make the source of the server available to the users of the service.
I don’t mind if people use LGPL or some derivative of GPL. All I want is improvements to the source be published, and MIT simply doesn’t enforce that. I have no intention to force companies to publish their code that they have worked on for a long time - doing that never really helps. But I do want them to publish changes they make to already FOSS products so the author and the community can benefit.
Yes, this is why I was mentioning the AGPL being a better fit when the software is a service, for the reasons I explained.
it’s been a trend for a while unfortunately. getting rid of the gpl is the motivation behind e.g. companies sponsoring clang/llvm so hard right now. there are also the developers that think permissive licenses are “freer” bc freedom is doing whatever you want /s. they’re ideologically motivated to ditch the gpl so they’ll support the change even if there’s no benefit for them, financial or otherwise.
They are maliciously harming the community. They need to be named and shamed. I still seethe at OpenBSD using it. Why is it so hard for them to understand? Why do they want to give away their work for the taking to corporations who just want to make money off of their backs?
they have a different view on what freedom means
Then it’s not one that is actively helping the FOSS community
How is actually writing and contributing free software not “actively helping the FOSS community”?
Not using GPL or derivatives doesn’t force companies to publish changes (which are usually improvements) which harms the community
Some people might say that so many companies contributing free and open code to clang/llvm instead of GCC is real world evidence against the idea that companies only contribute to free software because the GPL makes them. Or even that permissive licenses can lead to greater corporate sharing than the GPL does. Why does Apple openly contribute to LLVM but refuse to ship GPL3 anything?
According to the web, Red Hat is the most evil company in Open Source. They are also the biggest contributor to Xorg and Wayland. Those are MIT licensed. Why don’t they just keep all their code to themselves? The license would allow it after all. Why did they license systemd as GPL? They did not have to.
The memory allocator used in my distro was written by Microsoft. I have not paid them a dime and I enjoy “the 4 freedoms” with the code they gave me because it is completely free software. Guess what license it uses?
you (and everyone else who thinks the gpl is just about contributing back) are missing the point. the main goal of the gpl licenses (including the lgpl) is user freedom. they ensure that you can modify any piece of gpl software anywhere it’s used. if you use a propietary system that includes gpl/lgpl software, you should be able to modify the gpl parts to do whatever you want. say for some reason you’re using a system that includes ai slop in its shell, but the shell is a gpl application. you could just grab a fork of the shell stripped of ai functionality and replace the system’s shell with it
that’s impossible with permissive licenses. with permissive licenses, you could be using a system with 80% open source software and be completely unaware of it, unable to change it as you see fit. from the pov of the user, “permissive” licenses are restrictive; copyleft licenses are freer bc its restrictions are there to forbid the developer from locking down free software for the users
of course companies are going to prefer permissive licenses. they want to take advantage of using free labor enable by open source while keeping the freedom to lock down said open source software in their systems. so, when given the option, they will always prefer to contribute back to software with permissive licenses
and that’s the whole problem here: you giving them the option by creating a copyfree alternative to an important piece of copyleft software. do you think companies would ever comtribute to linux if any bsd was a viable alternative to linux? but the kernel community at large decided to stick to the gpl, so the companies have no choice
it’s true that copyfree software isn’t any less free than copyleft software, and i’m not even completely against using permissive licenses. my issue is creating an mit alternative to gpl software
getting rid of the gpl is the motivation behind e.g. companies sponsoring clang/llvm so hard right now.
Is it? As I understand it, LLVM is much easier to work with than GCC, especially given their LLVM IR and passes frameworks.
sure, but it didn’t get much attention until gcc switched to gpl v3 from gpl v2 and apple decided to jump ship to it
my point is that competitors to gpl software are always advertised through their technical merits (valid or not), but the point behind their development is getting rid of gpl-licensed software
getting rid of the gpl is the motivation behind e.g. companies sponsoring clang/llvm so hard right now
And there it is. Follow the money.
If you’re developing software for a platform that doesn’t allow users to replace dynamic libraries (game consoles, iOS, many embedded/commercial systems), you won’t be able to legally use any GPL or AGPL libraries.
While I strongly agree with the motives behind copyleft licenses, I personally never use them because I’ve had many occasions where I was unable to use any available library for a specific task because they all had incompatible licenses.
I release code for the sole purpose of allowing others to use it. I don’t want to impose any restrictions on my fellow developers, because I understand the struggle it can bring.
Even for desktop programs, I prefer MIT or BSD because it allows others to take snippets of code without needing to re-license anything.
Yes I understand that means anyone can make a closed-source fork, but that doesn’t bother me.
If I wanted to sell it I might care, but I would have used a different license for a commercial project anyway.Sorry, I’m not much of a software dev so bear with me:
If the libraries are GPL licensed, is there a problem? Unless you’re editing the libraries themselves.
Now if the application is GPL licensed and you’re adding functionality to use other libraries, please push upstream. It helps the community and the author will more likely than not be happy to receive it
Any linking against GPL software requires you to also release your source code under GPL. AGPL allows you to link to it dynamically without relicensing, but as explained, there are platforms where dynamic linking isn’t an option, which means these libraries can’t be used if one doesn’t want to provide AGPL licensed source code of their own product.
You mean LGPL when you say AGPL, right?
Using a GPL library will require you to re-license your entire project as GPL, regardless of whether you made a change or not.
LGPL is a bit better, because it allows you to dynamically link the library. But you’re required to provide a copy of source for the library, and any users must be able to swap the built library with their own copy.
Eg; you can use an AGPL-licensed .dll in your closed-source windows program, because users can swap that .dll easily.
You can’t do the same for a ps5 game because users aren’t able to replace any files that the game uses.
If the only problem is that you can’t use dynamic linking (or otherwise make relinking possible), you still can legally use LGPL libraries. As long as you license the project using that library as GPL or LGPL as well.
However, those platforms tend to be a problem for GPL in other ways. GPL has long been known to conflict with Apple’s App Store and similar services, for example, because the GPL forbids imposing extra limits that restrict user freedom and those stores have a terms of service that does exactly that.
I guess I forgot to mention that those platforms usually require you to sign NDA’s that prevent you from releasing any code that references their SDK.
This makes it impossible to license your entire project as GPL/AGPL, as you would be breaking the NDA.
The unfortunate reality is that a significant proportion of software engineers (and other IT folks) are either laissez-faire “libertarians” who are ideologically opposed to the restrictions in the GPL, or “apolitical” tech-bros who are mostly just interested in their six figure paychecks and fancy toys.
To these folks, the MIT/BSD licenses have fewer restrictions, and are therefore more free, and are therefore more better.
“apolitical” tech-bros who are mostly just interested in their six figure paychecks and fancy toys.
This, I understand.
laissez-faire “libertarians” who are ideologically opposed to the restrictions in the GPL
This, I do not. Apologies for my tone in the next paragraph but I’m really pissed off (not directed at you):
WHAT RESTRICTIONS??? IF YOU LOT HAD EVEN A SHRED OF SYMPATHY FOR THE COMMUNITY YOU WOULD HAVE BOYCOTTED THE MIT AND APACHE LICENSE BY NOW. THIS IS EQUIVALENT TO HANDING CORPORATIONS YOUR WORK AND BEGGING THEM TO SCREW OVER YOUR WORK AND THE FOSS COMMUNITY.
I feel a bit better but not by much. This makes me vomit.
I write code for a living. I cannot, by any means, utilize a GPL library to support the needs of our customers and will either have to write my own replacement or dig to find something with less restrictions like MIT.
On many occasions, we will find bugs or usage gaps or slowdowns that can get pushed back to the MIT licensed open source cause we were able to use it in the first place. If your goal is to make sure your library gets used and gets external contributors, I don’t see how GPL helps the situation as it limits what developers can even choose your library in the first place. If your goal is spreading the ideology that all software should be free, go keep banging your drum for GPL.
Thank you for your work. If people like you were all around us, then I wouldn’t mind as much projects using MIT since we would still see contributions. But I doubt there’s that many people out there like you. Thank you for contributing to FOSS.
Like 80% of the top 10 most contributed libraries on github are either MIT, Apache, or BSD. I think you underestimate how many corpo folks do contribute or wholly support open source libraries.
Since you seem so reasonable…
The restriction that some people object to is that the GPL restricts the freedom of the software developers (the people actually writing and contributing the code).
Most people would agree at first glance that developers should be able to license code that they write under whatever license they like. MIT is one option. Some prefer the GPL. Most see the right to choose a proprietary license for your own work as ok but some people describe this as unethical. I personally see all three as valid. I certainly think the GPL should be one of the options.
That said, if we are talking about code that already exists, the GPL restricts freedom without adding any that MIT does not also provide.
MIT licensed software is “free software” by definition. Once something has been MIT licensed, it is Open Source and cannot be taken away.
The MIT license provides all of the Free Software Foundations “4 freedoms”. It also provides freedoms that the GPL does not.
What the MIT license does not provide is guaranteed access to “future” code that has not yet been written. That is, in an MIT licensed code base, you can add new code that is not free. In a GPL code base, this is not possible.
So, the GPL removes rights from the developers in that it removes the right to license future code contributions as you want. Under the GPL, the right of users to get future code for free is greater than the right of the developer to license their future contributions. Some people do not see that as a freedom. Some even see it as quite the opposite (forced servitude). This “freedom” is not one of the “4 freedoms” touted by the FSF but it is the main feature of the GPL.
What freedom in the sense of writing code does the GPL inhibit? GPL simply says that changes to the source must be published. MIT is just a scapegoat for companies to get stuff for free without helping the developer that’s giving their time and soul for it
developers should be able to license code that they write under whatever license they like
What if they choose a license that limits the freedom from all other developers to improve that copy of the software? is allowing a developer to restrict further development actually good for the freedom of the developers? Because I would say no.
The spirit of the GPL is to give freedom to the developers and hackers (in the good sense of hacker). The chorus of the Free Software Song by Stallman is “you’ll be free hackers, you’ll be free”.
the GPL restricts freedom without adding any that MIT does not also provide
“Your freedom ends when the freedom of others begins”
The only “freedom” the GPL restricts is the freedom to limit the freedom of other developers/hackers that want to edit your software. This is in the same spirit as having laws against slavery that restrict the “freedom” of people to take slaves.
Would a society that allows oppression (that has no laws against it) be more “free” than a society that does not allow oppression (with laws to guarantee the freedom of others is respected)?
Freedom for the rich and powerful to fuck over society and everyone else!
Yeah, that’s all there’s to it, along with pure ignorance. In a past not so ideologically developed life, I’ve written code under Apache 2 because it was “more free.” Understanding licenses, their implications, the ideologies behind them and their socioeconomic effects isn’t trivial. People certainly aren’t born educated in those, and often they reach for the code editor before that.
it’s interesting how the move away from the gpl is never explicitly justified as a license issue: instead, people always have some plausible technical motivation. with clang/llvm it was the lower compile times and better error messages; with these coreutils it’s “rust therefore safer”. the license change was never even addressed
i believe they have to do this exactly bc permissive licenses appeal to libertarian/apolitical types who see themselves as purely rational and changing a piece of software bc of the license would sound too… ideological…
so the people in charge of these changes always have a plausible technical explanation i hand to mask away the political aspect of the change
The rust coreutils project choosing the MIT license is just another gambit to allow something like android or chromeos happen to gnu+linux, where all of the userland gets replaced by proprietary junk.
And yet that’s a popularly welcomed approach, for some reason. Just look at the number of thumbs down this has. https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/1781
I"m with you on copyleft, but if I had any connection to the project and felt the need to add a reaction emoji, it’d probably be a “thumbs-down” as well.
It’s not because I’m against the GPL, but because of the way the GitHub comment is written.
It doesn’t even say “you should use the GPL”, it says “you MUST say GNU doesn’t agree with you”. I’m perplexed.
Now, I respect the idea of GNU, but the way GNUers in general go about behaving themselves is perfect to alienate people, and this GitHub issue is a prime example. I don’t get it.
If people don’t know about GNU, tell them. Nicely.
If people have misconceptions about GNU, there’s nothing wrong with fixing them. Again, nicely.
The problem is, whenever I encounter GNU and however much I agree with them on key issues (which is at about 90%, my main gripe with them being Freedom 0), they just have a knack to get me, someone who is with them on most issues, annoyed at them. I can clearly see how someone who isn’t as alligned with them as I am gets equally annoyed and avoids GPL and GNU like the plague just to fuck with 'em (while fucking over everyone, including themselves). Not to mention ones into the libertarian stream, since you yourself covered that pretty well.
What the GitHub issue you linked that I keep coming back to shows is this GNU herd mentality of fucking over others unintentionally and in turn fucking over everyone. While they’re clearly better than the “libtards”, they still end up doing the same mistake.
There is another issue on their tracker that was opened many years ago about relicensing to GPL, but it kind of became one of those things where a bunch of people came in and discussed it back and forth to death with no resolution.
I remember the lead developer of the Rust version of Coreutils gave a talk about the project once and he addressed the licensing question by essentially saying (paraphrasing), “I don’t care about this. So I just picked one.” You’d think someone so involved with open source as that guy (seriously, he has a hugely impressive pedigree) would care, or would at least give a justification.
It doesn’t even say “you should use the GPL”
That sounds a lot more confrontational and less diplomatic than the Github issue, though.
The ticket was actually indirectly asking it, by explaining the potential problems with non-copyleft. They just added “If you plan to carry on…” to introduce a compromise, which actually allowed for at least some minor change to be made, and made it clear that the different license is intentional and not just for lack of awareness (which implies the devs have no intention on switching).
it says “you MUST say GNU doesn’t agree with you”
Somehow you added the “MUST” to this sentence, but not to the first one… even though the github issue did not say they MUST, instead it even used the word “please” and appealed to having some deference to the GNU coreutils.
At least this issue managed to get a change through for clarity… I don’t think you would have gotten anything at all with the other approach.
yeah, unfortunately most people in the foss community are the apolitical/free thinker types who hate the fsf bc it is “too political/evangelist” and don’t want to understand how user freedom is affected by permissive licenses
I use LLVM because it’s good, but I would like it even more if it was GPL and I agree with OP’s comment as well.
However, you’re literally the guy that replies “oh, so you hate oranges” to people that say “I like apples” or however that meme goes. How about you don’t completely twist people’s justifications into something they never said.
chill, man. i’ve never said this is consciously (or at all) his reasoning for not choosing the gpl. what i mean is that, collectively, this is what’s pushing the development, sponsoring, and adoption of more and more tooling with permissive licenses
Add to this, the constant badmouthing of GNU and FSF from the crony bootlickers and sadly this is what we get
The tech crowd is also more of a consumer kind these days than the hacky kind, so it’s much easier to push corporate shite with a little bit of polish on top
