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:
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.
Now beg Apple and Intel so you can modify it for your own use, they sure did lock it up forever.
Its also a scarcity of developer time if they don't have access to the formerly BSD turned proprietary modified source code. With GPL, all code is always available to anyone by requiring anyone receiving the code to do the same, make it available to anyone else that got it from them.
You are projecting, if anything, BSD is what allows communist confiscation by allowing the code to be relicensed and closed off. "I want to take this but don't want to allow anyone else using my version to see my code".
No, the logic is "I designed a screw, I want everyone to be able to modify it if they wish, on condition they also allow anyone else to do the same as they have". Maybe your application needs a fancy interrupted thread for faster operations, feel free to make better alternatives for your use case, just as BSD and Windows exists alongside the Linux kernel for different purposes.
You talk about "rights, rights, rights" but never any obligation to actually preserve it. Now the improved version can only be used by some people who are better than others.