I think it's just the GPL family of licenses that tend tend to cause most problems. I appreciate their intent, but the outcome often leaves a lot to be desired.
The GPL exists for the benefit of end users, not developers. It being a chore for developers who want to deny their users the software freedoms is a feature, not a bug.
If you have ill intentions or maybe you're a corporation that wants to use someone else's work for free without contributing anything back, then yes, I can see how GPL licenses "tend to cause problems".
Why? What's your problem with them? They do exactly what they're supposed to do, to ensure that future derivatives of the source code have to be distributed under the same license and distribution respects fundamental freedoms.
I like to think about GPL as a kind of an artistic performance and an elaborate critique of the whole concept of copyright.
Like, "we don't like copyright, but since you insist on enforcing it and we can't do anything against it, we will invent a clever way to use your own rules against you".
That is not really the motivation behind GPL licenses. These licenses have been designed to ensure by legal means that anyone can learn from the source code of software, fix bugs on their own, and modify the software to their needs.
Wtf are these comments? A LGPL licensed project, guaranteed to be free and open source, being LLM-washed to a permissive license, and GPL is the problem here?
They are literally stealing from open source, but it's the original license that is the issue?
The 25519 crypto package that's built into practically everything these days (SSH, TLS, most e2e messaging) was released as both a spec and a C reference implementation _in the public domain_.
I think it's just the GPL family of licenses that tend tend to cause most problems. I appreciate their intent, but the outcome often leaves a lot to be desired.
The GPL exists for the benefit of end users, not developers. It being a chore for developers who want to deny their users the software freedoms is a feature, not a bug.
How does the GPL help a user who doesn't write code themselves?
8 replies →
If you have ill intentions or maybe you're a corporation that wants to use someone else's work for free without contributing anything back, then yes, I can see how GPL licenses "tend to cause problems".
Why? What's your problem with them? They do exactly what they're supposed to do, to ensure that future derivatives of the source code have to be distributed under the same license and distribution respects fundamental freedoms.
If the GPL causes you problems, then it's working as intended.
I like to think about GPL as a kind of an artistic performance and an elaborate critique of the whole concept of copyright.
Like, "we don't like copyright, but since you insist on enforcing it and we can't do anything against it, we will invent a clever way to use your own rules against you".
That is not really the motivation behind GPL licenses. These licenses have been designed to ensure by legal means that anyone can learn from the source code of software, fix bugs on their own, and modify the software to their needs.
2 replies →
Wtf are these comments? A LGPL licensed project, guaranteed to be free and open source, being LLM-washed to a permissive license, and GPL is the problem here?
They are literally stealing from open source, but it's the original license that is the issue?
They have been maintaining the project for years. It's not like some Joe Random with ChatGPT randomly entered the scene
2 replies →
And what exactly are some of these problems?
There would be no open source without the gpl
The GPL was historically of course a counter-reaction to copyrightability of code. Hence "copyleft" etc.
MIT and BSD are doing just fine.
The 25519 crypto package that's built into practically everything these days (SSH, TLS, most e2e messaging) was released as both a spec and a C reference implementation _in the public domain_.
Nothing lasts forever. We now have tools that let us fulfill the ultimate goal of open source.
GPL was a means, not an end.
This. If Stallman could have asked AI to generate the source code for the printer driver, the GPL would not exist.
Open source as a concept is intertwined with the concept of a license.