3 ms·
I think the GPLv3 is more widely feared than understood. Most of the objections raised in the flamewars come from misunderstandings of its terms (e.g. the belie
by jordigh 10y ago
I think the GPLv3 is more widely feared than understood. Most of the objections raised in the flamewars come from misunderstandings of its terms (e.g. the belief that it forbids encryption or it has patent anti-retaliation clauses worse than the Apache license), or from objections to early drafts of it. For example, the Linux devs refused to upgrade to GPLv3 after reading an early draft, and never reconsidered the question after the final draft was out.
And yeah, I would consider what happened to Jobs to be "pwning". He was trying very hard to not have to give gcc any source code, and he failed. If he was happy with the GPL, we would have seen more contributions to gcc after that, but they never happened again.
- sheepleherd 10y agoThe GPL protects users; if you use software, a GPL license protects your right to make changes to the software via the source code to correct problems and make it suit your needs. I understand that many developers and suits to not wish to give this right to users, but trying to never mention that and calling yourself or anybody "pwned" by the GPL that other developers granted to you is quite simply propaganda. Protecting users' rights is not getting pwned, it's a failure to pwn your users with software that you don't have pwnership of.