I know this feels like an odd example, but I had heard one reason to favor GPL over AGPL is because GPL has been upheld so often in court. Here is an example of AGPL working as intended though.
I know this feels like an odd example, but I had heard one reason to favor GPL over AGPL is because GPL has been upheld so often in court. Here is an example of AGPL working as intended though.
Why would someone giving away free software bother you? What part of GPL upsets you?
For real true freedom I like the ISC license for giving away source code.
The constant argument about companies stealing source code is a cultural problem, not a license issue. Fix the social culture in society so people have ethical standards again, and companies will start to change their amoral behaviour. Not immoral, but amoral.
GPL are fanatics who are leeches off of other peoples work to build anything. I have wondered if that’s why GPLv3 people have never built an operating system like BSD engineers and designers, only a collection of parts from different designers and made them come together.
There is no operating system called GNU with a kernel and native format for installing software. There is no operating system called Linux with system libraries and a format to install software built into Liux natively.
It’s like Stallman built the body of a care and ever dealt with the engine. Linus built an engine but didn’t know how to do anything with an engine like engineer the rest of the body.
Each BSD is it’s own operating system with their own developers. A FreeBSD kernel can’t run OpenSD libraries.
I think your comments about GPL vs. BSD are a bit misleading. BSD is great, by the way- I’m very glad the various free/open BSDs exist, and they can be good choices for different applications. But Linux is significantly more successful as just a kernel, and GNU is significantly more successful as a collection of libraries and utilities, and GNU/Linux is more successful as an operating system than any of the BSDs. The fact that it was put together as a collection of components written by various people was arguably one of the primary purposes of the project, so I don’t really see how that’s a mark against it.
It also may be worth noting that BSD is not simply Unix-like, it is Unix. Your line of reasoning might end up compelling you to claim that only proprietary software engineering has lead to the development of a complete operating system.
And finally, slightly tongue-in-cheek (but not really)- there is a GNU-specific way to distribute and install software (GNU Guix), I use it, great package manager + OS, and you can run a complete GNU operating system (various Hurd OSes exist, but for full GNU, you can run Guix System with the Hurd). I don’t think that’s particularly important tbh (again, distributed contribution is one of the main goals of GNU and Linux), but fwiw, I think you’re also technically incorrect on this point.
I love that there are multiple different free and open source licenses, and creators can choose which ones suit their needs, no argument there!
Can you expand on this? I genuinely have no idea what you mean. Are you suggesting that devs who release under GPL are stealing something?
The argument about companies stealing source code exists because companies are greedy and often take open source code, especially those under permissive licenses like BSD and MIT and use them without compensating the developer. This is problematic because they are essentially getting free labor from a community where the norm is to donate to projects that benefit you. Part of the whole reason why copyleft licenses like GPL and AGPL exist is to force these companies to open source their projects so that, in the worst case scenario, even they contribute to our collective code base.
I think it is disingenuous to claim that GNU/Linux isn’t a real operating system or is messy in some way. The whole project works very well and contains billions of dollars worth of shared labor that is available to the world for free and far exceeds the quality of any other operating system. Literally the only place it isn’t dominant in market share is on the desktop.
Though I guess copyleft licenses are spooky Marxism. how dare people work for free towards the benefit of our collective knowledge! How dare people not make only closed source code and sell it under a corporation! This is truly awful and I have deleted all open source software from