I spent the past 25 minutes reading 3 articles against GPLv3 but I couldn't find anything bad about it. I can't understand how forcing hardware vendors to comply with the free software they are using is a bad thing.
Will companies bankrupt because of this? sure no. I guess if Stallman allow some GPLv2 compatibility under special circumstances (like kernel) it would be good for everyone
I spent the past 25 minutes reading 3 articles against GPLv3 but I couldn't find anything bad about it...
Other urls found in this thread:
zdnet.com
twitter.com
There are various companies which regularly violate the GPL but no one ever takes them to court
exactly. They think Stallmann will start to do it right now but he has never done in the past
not that I'm in favor of persecuting small companies but there are a lot of vendors who deserve to be sued for violating GPL
zdnet.com
They should have sued the hell outta microsoft
even the EFF hasn't really taken any GPL violation cases
Free software is dead.
GPL is only as strong as the original creator decides. If they don't bother enforcing it then the license might as well be BSD.
Corporations will always fuck GPL in the ass and the chance of them ever being caught red-handed-enough to be actually prosecuted is close to zero.
they are too much worried crying over net neutrality, etc. That I understand. But it would be good if some decent person took over FSF and EFF and started to develop software to help people instead of doing media and events. I also wish they fucking sued everyone who violated their GPL since Microsoft standard answer is ''we had no intention...'' and they believe
That said I see no problems with v3 and it would be interesting if some good people took the job to revise violations of GPL
GPL enforcement is a delicate issue, a lot of people even hardcore free software advocates advise against using lawsuits as the first line of defense because it tends to scare away derivative works and contributors. GPL is legally speaking stronger but that comes with the additional drawback that you have to shift some of your focus away from the actual project and on to legal shit.
but if you focus on paying people to actually do some code and fix long-buggy software it will remove any drawback from lawsuits
I mean there are dozens of gnu projects that need to be revitalized. I bet even if they focused on their GNU Icecat it would become the default browser for 99% of debian-based distros
but there is a lot of libraries, tools and core-kernel code that needs improvement as well
It's shit if you want to do static linking of libraries for commercial products. Because you'd have to reveal the source code if you do.
I prefer MIT, I license all my stuff MIT. Yes, it means someone else can take my code, but good luck supporting a fork for more than five minutes.
Microsoft made it available to the public immediately though. At that point there's nothing to sue over, its not like the program was even for sale.
>At that point there's nothing to sue over
And imo that's the wrong approach. They should've been sued and forced to pay as an example for others considering doing the same.
So far the model is "if we catch you, we give you a chance to redeem yourself". And it's clearly isn't working
"Permissive" feels wrong to describe licenses that result in more proprietary software, since the end results are less permissions.
This also leads into thinking that the GPL would be "restrictive", while in reality the only restriction is making sure that the software will stay free, which results in the end in more permissions than "permissive" licensing.
That's a fat load of bullshit. Permissive licenses do not prevent developers from releasing free software, restrictive licenses restrict developers from releasing proprietary software, even if that software only uses the restricted code for trivial functions
So from what I get from this board is GPL is marxist/communist/socialist and BSD is ancap
Is there something more moderate and reasonable?
>be intel
>turn minix into a backdoor system
>gorillions of people have no permission to remove the botnet in their cpus
>except a handful of intel devs
the power of permissive licenses
You could do your own researches instead of falling for memes. Just an idea.
To an extent, a for-profit corporation is going to have the legal department capable of fucking up anything the Free Software Foundation or developer can muster up.
That being said, if you read case studies the courts typically wouldn't side with the license anyway. Software isn't viewed like a copyright, if the business modified the source code it then the court will most likely deem that it's a different product.
>some neckbeards README
>a binding contract
umm no sweatie
The people/businesses violating these licenses are all Russian/Indian/Pakistani etc. and there really isn't shit that can be done about it anyway. If you publish your source code publicly just accept the fact that people will rip it for their own use case and not give you any credit.
...
>To an extent, a for-profit corporation is going to have the legal department capable of fucking up anything the Free Software Foundation or developer can muster up.
Nah not really. Look at the FSF v Cisco case. FSF is pretty much a lawyer organisation. But FSF has no power to enforce copyrights of projects it doesn't hold copyrights too. And actually figuring out that someone does in fact uses your GPL'd code is the hard bit.