@waltercool@freetar@waifu I literally linked to the proprietary software in Linux and to the "open source definition" (noting to check requirement 2) - certainly not GNU links.
Linux is the selected name of the Linux project, which was to develop a kernel and did little more than that.
It's completely ludicrous and totally incorrect to refer to software that is not Linux, as "Linux", as no matter how popular an error is, that doesn't make it the reality.
In no other OS has the whole OS been named after the name that was used to name the kernel.
It's like getting a rose and calling it a pen - the rose will smell just as sweet, but people will proceed to try to write with the "pen" and get confused as hell.
GNU only asks that you refer to GNU as GNU and Linux as Linux and when GNU is combined with Linux, to refer to it as; GNU/Linux, or GNU+Linux or GNU with Linux or LiGNUx or just GNU, as all of those would be correct names.
The operating system is GNU. One of the kernels is Linux.
Another is GNU Linux-libre, another is GNU Hurd.
Linux is not an OS, as it does not *operate* on its own - a fact.
If you want to refer to the OS, correctly that would be GNU.
But we're not spiteful curs and refuse to credit Linux for Linux - unlike the spiteful curs that refuse to credit GNU for GNU - thus the OS is called GNU/Linux.
If you want to pay respects for GNU, feel free to do that, just don't expect others to follow or agree with you.
The whole discussion here happens because you don't accept "Linux" as the Operative System, but instead you are claiming the Operative System is GNU/Linux.
That doesn't make it correct or incorrect, that makes you forcing people to use the GNU/loser term
@waltercool@freetar@waifu >You didn't force us to give credit with a proprietary restriction, thus you don't deserve credit.
Most GNU users who have never heard of GNU; https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html and consider themselves "Linux users", as they have been told it's "just Linux" and it was all written by Linus with some help.
Major companies have admitted that they think they'll make more money if they don't give credit to GNU, thus they omit credit.
It's like some dude asking you not to call him "Miss", as he's not a Miss.
@Suiseiseki@freetar@waifu@waltercool GNU + Linux and that only if you are really autistic about Lunix. Otherwise its often in the Acronyms of some Programs (GNU Image Manipulation Program, GNU C Compiler, GNU GRand Unified Bootloader, GNU Nuclear Armed Terrorism, ETC).
On my side, part of my job is removing every single piece of software using GPL libraries because they are terrible for the software industry.
So far so good by the way, thankfully the OpenSource community, including big tech, do very great software/libraries under MIT/Apache, and we contribute when possible,
If your project is a mere aggregate, you are not required to provide the source code.
It's only if you've made a derivative work that the whole lot must be provided under compatible terms (which are a hell of a lot better than the typical proprietary license, which disallows doing so totally).
There is no requirement in any GNU license to expose the customers business to the internet.
B2B can respect the other business's freedoms and both can choose not to publish the software on the internet.
@waltercool@Suiseiseki@freetar@waifu your job is good i think a software company that does clean room implementation of gpl projects might be a good idea to start
@icst@freetar@waifu@waltercool "All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term."
If you don't make a derivative work of a GPLv3-or-later library, there is nothing you need to do.
You are not forced to shared your modifications to anyone - you can keep them private.
It's unacceptable that you have the ability to take free software and turn it into proprietary software and attack people with it and the GPLv3-or-later rightfully says no.