Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 19-Jun-2024 23:57:56 JST 翠星石

   in reply to
   @sesquipedality >useful anti-tivoisation protections not in the GPL 2
   The GPLv2 doesn't in fact allow tivoisation.
   
   https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html; "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." - note that this doesn't say "object code" nor "binary", it means an executable file that *executes*
   
   As it's a pain in the ass getting a judge to understand what an executable is in court, the GPLv3 was written to be crystal clear as to what was required; https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
   
   >I'm kind of regretting going GPL3+ though given Stallman's stranglehold on the FSF.
   rms founded the FSF and is chief GNUisance - if he didn't have a stranglehold on ensuring that the freedom remains true, something would be wrong,
   
   >I mean I thought GPL3 was the approximate "strong" open source consensus license
   The GPLv3 is not an "open source" license - it doesn't say "open" in it and the preamble states that it's a free license.
   
   I strongly suggest reading the GPLv3 or at least the faq; https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
   
   
   As always, people can't help but lie; "much like GPLv3 was a vanity project for the FSF / Stallman,".
   
   It wasn't a vanity project - it was a bugfix for several bugs found in the GPLv2 (just like the GPLv2 was a bugfix for the GPLv1)- one bad bug is how under the GPLv2, if you inadvertently infringe the license, your license is automatically terminated and you have to ask all copyright holders to reinstate it (this isn't much of a problem with projects with only a handful of copyright holders as was common in 1991, but is a big problem in projects with thousands of them) - while the GPLv3 automatically reinstates if you resolve all infringement within 30 days.
   
   >but this conversation kind of leaves me feeling like I might have made a mistake.
   It's never a mistake to use a masterpiece of a free software license and -or-later - the only possible improvement would be to license AGPLv3-or-later (it's compatible with the GPLv3); https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html