GPL is only “viral” if you think freedom is a disease.
Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
Aral Balkan (aral@mastodon.ar.al)'s status on Sunday, 07-Apr-2024 19:55:17 JST Aral Balkan -
Embed this notice
Aral Balkan (aral@mastodon.ar.al)'s status on Sunday, 07-Apr-2024 20:05:02 JST Aral Balkan @ruisan I’d call it a reciprocating license.
And I’d call licenses where you can take without giving back parasitic licenses.
-
Embed this notice
ruisan (ruisan@masto.es)'s status on Sunday, 07-Apr-2024 20:05:03 JST ruisan @aral how do you call then? 😀
-
Embed this notice
Aral Balkan (aral@mastodon.ar.al)'s status on Sunday, 07-Apr-2024 20:08:27 JST Aral Balkan Licenses like GPL are reciprocative licenses. If you take, you must also give back.
Licenses like MIT are parasitic licenses. You can take without giving back.
-
Embed this notice
Annika Backstrom (annika@xoxo.zone)'s status on Sunday, 07-Apr-2024 20:30:34 JST Annika Backstrom @aral MIT is great if your primary goal is bragging rights about some startup using your code
-
Embed this notice
翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 07-Apr-2024 22:10:55 JST 翠星石 @aral Don't forget that there any many licenses in the GPL family and not just one.
No version of the GPL acts as a virus, as copyleft doesn't "infect" merely aggregated software like a virus would - rather it's like a spider plant - if you make the explicit choice to take a piece, the freedom grows. -
Embed this notice
Aral Balkan (aral@mastodon.ar.al)'s status on Sunday, 07-Apr-2024 23:14:50 JST Aral Balkan @yusef AGPL is even better for that. None of it is perfect. Not least of all because once you’re large/powerful enough the only law that applies under capitalism is the law of the jungle.
-
Embed this notice
Yusef Napora (yusef@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 07-Apr-2024 23:14:52 JST Yusef Napora @aral I made my latest thing GPL partly because I haven’t mustered up the activation energy to leave GitHub yet, and I figure the one thing that might make Microsoft pause before blending my code into goo for the plagiarism bot is the idea that a court would declare the whole model a derivative work. Probably just wishful thinking, but given how big tech seems to treat GPL as a contamination, it seems like decent armor 🙂
-
Embed this notice
robotalien (robotalien@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 08-Apr-2024 01:06:56 JST robotalien @aral I think they are altruistic licenses. You give without expecting anything in return.
-
Embed this notice
Aral Balkan (aral@mastodon.ar.al)'s status on Monday, 08-Apr-2024 01:06:56 JST Aral Balkan @robotalien You’re not the one getting something in return; everyone is. That’s why we call it the commons.
When you take without giving back, you’re not helping build a healthy commons, you’re simply privatising it.
-
Embed this notice
Aral Balkan (aral@mastodon.ar.al)'s status on Monday, 08-Apr-2024 02:42:36 JST Aral Balkan @fluxwatcher Haha, sure, of course, only the corporations should benefit from them. Not someone working for the common good.
Good to know which team you’re batting for. And, also, goodbye.
-
Embed this notice
fluxwatcher (fluxwatcher@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 08-Apr-2024 02:42:37 JST fluxwatcher @aral Nobody forces you to use non GPL-licensed projects.
Be a consistent person and stop using them 😉 -
Embed this notice
Aral Balkan (aral@mastodon.ar.al)'s status on Monday, 08-Apr-2024 04:05:26 JST Aral Balkan @robotalien Good for you.
-
Embed this notice
robotalien (robotalien@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 08-Apr-2024 04:05:27 JST robotalien @aral But I'm not a commons-nist. If someone can create a business on top of free code, they probably have something of value to offer. I don't believe restrictive licenses incentive contributions at all. I think they just stop people who would profit from freely available code from starting their enterprises. I don't see this as a net plus as projects that could have been made weren't due to GPL's ideology.
-
Embed this notice