Vaccine passports: https://archive.is/9psCP
Linus's comments: https://archive.is/pXzn9
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (65)
sorted by:
Stallman bit the MSM bug awhile ago and went Orange Man Bad, I haven't kept up with him since. He got thrown under the bus for being a creeper and a making creeper posts, so its pretty much a political charge. Remember, liberals get the bullet too.
I fully expect him to regret inventing GPL allow "bad people" to do "bad things" any day now. It is likely a move to discourage developers from using GPL over BSD license.
An important distinction in GPL is that there is no difference between developer and end users, both must be given the same freedoms. In practice it means if I as an end user legally obtained a copy of your software, binary or not, I have the right to demand the source code too. It has to be in machine readable form, so no boxes of print outs, says so in the license. In turn, any software derivative I made based on the source code I obtained must also be made available to whoever obtained a copy of my software legally.
The last what drives BSD license people mad, they can't lock it down and see it as an impediment on their developer freedom. Lolbertarians butthurt. The switch from GPLv2 to GPLv3 (through the GPLv2 or later clause) caused so much butthurt, Apple gradually started removing all GPL licensed software from the OS. The Linux kernel itself is GPLv2 and will always be.
Lastly the GPL is only effect when making transmissible copies. If I made modifications to a GPL software for myself but never made a copy for anyone else, I can do whatever I want with it, since there are no copies made to anyone else.
GPL doesn't care if you're linking static or share, that would be LGPL, designed for shared libraries. I don't see how BSD preserves freedom when you don't even have any guarantees to the source code if it can be relicensed any time by a fork, particularly 3 clause and 2 clause BSD versions. The 4 clause version just needs you to put in an ad for the BSD license but doesn't require anything else.
If anything, GPL would be the militant commune that aims to protect itself from subversion, while BSD would be the hippie commune that can't even understand the need to protect itself.
The whole point of a strong copyleft is code remains free, it will never turn proprietary.
You use GPL because you want a strong copyleft, that's the whole point. If you are making a library that is designed to be link to and you don't care about the applications using it, you use LGPL. LGPL states that the user MUST be able to replace the library portion, shared linking is easier in this case because of the architecture of the program loaders for most OSes. You can still static link to an LGPL library fine if you provide some kind of link editor to allow users to edit and relink your library to their version. If you made an application that is not designed to be linked to, what is the point of using LGPL?
There's that lolbertarian logic again. The only people praising it are idealists or someone looking to build their own proprietary fief.
Are you seriously suggesting there is a scarcity of bits? Am I confiscating and redistributing your code if I made a copy? Do you somehow lose yours if I did? Is git clone stealing and coveting your neighbor's wealth?
There is no central planning committee dictating five year plans for GPL programs. The only contract is that you give the same freedoms to your users the same freedom you received.
That would be BSD, pray you are given permission.