@lanodan >otherwise Debian, Ubuntu, … would likely also be.
Although Debian and Ubuntu contain proprietary malware, they mostly only merely aggregate separate software, so the issues with derivative works don't occur (until you open the Linux can of worms).

>using a sort of monorepo for their base system, any kind of license incompatibility there is pretty fatal as it would force a re-licensing (that's what "viral" means).
It took me way too long, but I think I figured it out.

They want to keep all of the software they hold the copyright for under cuck licenses, so proprietary software companies can just take it and cuck them by making it proprietary and then using such software against them.

It seems they actually want to be cucked - as they're deathly afraid of licenses that put a stop to such.


No version of the GPL is a "viral" license, as no version "infects" separate software merely aggregated on say a file system.

Rather, all versions are like a spider plant - if you decide to take a piece, it will grow and also form a barrier against proprietary degeneracy.


>without someone like Theo de Raadt we would likely be with deeply proprietary device-software("firmware") and drivers
I've read a few comments from Theo and it seems that he only cares about convenience - not actually about putting an end to proprietary software.

It's not convenient for Theo if OpenBSD isn't permitted to distribute the firmware/drivers, or fix/workaround the most glaring bugs, if the license on the firmware/drivers doesn't allow for redistribution.

As a result, Theo is quite happy if the manufacturer slaps most of the driver into some loadable firmware that runs on the hardware itself, as long as the license allows merely redistribution, as OpenBSD can then legally distribute such malware and OpenBSD can then implement the rest of the driver in a way that fixes most of the bugs.

But, such setup does not give you freedom - it's proprietary software with merely permission to distribute the proprietary software and not much else.

Of course, Theo uses "free" to refers to such proprietary servitude, even though the proprietary software isn't even gratis, as you paid for it as part of the cost of the hardware.


We are indeed still with deeply proprietary firmware and drivers and such is getting more and more proprietary - although some freedom enjoyers have liberated some hardware (usually only when the hardware doesn't use digital handcuffs to prevent replacement of the software).


>GPLv2 itself is already an example of that, it is incompatible with GPLv3
It's impossible for a copyleft license to be compatible with a different copyleft license (aside from an upgrade mechanism) - otherwise the copyleft would have a hole big enough to drive a truck through.

>the only reason shit didn't blow up is because most have "GPL2-or-later" licensing
Yes, most freedom enjoyers have the sense to follow the recommended practice and license -or-later and then there's no problem.

>which is comparable to dual-licensing except no one knows in advance what the later licences will be.
Everyone does knows in advance what the later licenses will be:
" 14. Revised Versions of this License.
The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new
versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such
new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but
may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns."

Later versions will be a free software license that defends freedom in a way that's similar in spirit and this has happened with the GPLv2 and GPLv3 - why would the GPLv4 would be any different?

If you are still worried that later versions will be different to freedom somehow there's always:
" If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future
versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that
proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently
authorizes you to choose that version for the Program."