4 ms·

Taler uses various *GPL3+ licenses, including parts under AGPL3+ Linux, Systemd, Git, and Blender are all (L)GPL v2, and none are AGPL. There are thousands of

Taler uses various *GPL3+ licenses, including parts under AGPL3+ Linux, Systemd, Git, and Blender are all (L)GPL v2, and none are AGPL. There are thousands of open source projects I could name that are far reaching and have enormous success, released under permissive licenses such as Apache, BSD, MIT, etc. If the system wasn't so fucked I'd down vote you.

cyphar 10y ago
Noted. Good to know that people have forgotten how hard the free software community had to fight to be able to even have free software. I don't understand the sudden amnesia when Microsoft releases one part of their stack under the MIT license while still enslaving users. It's doublethink.
- stephenr 10y ago
  Did I once mention proprietary software or Microsoft? Is that really how you see the software world, GPL vs Microsoft/proprietary?
  - etatoby 10y ago
    Free software is pretty much the opposite of proprietary software, yes, and GPL is the single license that enabled the free software revolution we are all benefiting from. Sure, the battle against greed is far from over, but the benefits are already quite obvious. If people and companies had kept to proprietary EULA and BSD as the only options, we would still be in the dire situation we were in the 90s.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >Free software is pretty much the opposite of proprietary software, yes, and GPL is the single license that enabled the free software revolution we are all benefiting from. I call BS. GPL just happened to have the GNU stack with it. If the same toolchain (gcc, etc) were released as BSD/MIT from the beginning, it would have been just as well or better.
      - cyphar 10y ago
        GNU was created on the basis of the GPL. It's not an accident that the "GNU stack had the GPL", it was a plan from the beginning to create a system which people could use in freedom. The toolchain would not exist if Stallman hadn't made the decision that user freedom was something he should work towards. And we wouldn't have any free software without GNU, because that's what the world was heading towards in the 70s and 80s. BSD would still be proprietary, since Stallman talked to Berkeley to convince the developers to release their improvements to Unix.
        coldtea 10y ago
        >GNU was created on the basis of the GPL. It's not an accident that the "GNU stack had the GPL", it was a plan from the beginning to create a system which people could use in freedom. The accident was that the plan was conceived by Stallman and involved GNU/GPL. What I'm saying is a similar plan with BSD/MIT licenses, if it was initiated by another guy first, would be just as good. In other words that the reason GNU/OSS got that far was that they provided software people needed at the right time -- not because they were GPL as opposed to BSD licensd.
        sidhu1f 10y ago
        What makes you so sure that, had the GNU stack been BSD/MIT licensed and as popular, that Microsoft etc. would not have come out with products featuring the same software but with proprietary extensions and closed licenses?
        stephenr 10y ago
        None of those things makes the original software unavailable to use.
        coldtea 10y ago
        >What makes you so sure that, had the GNU stack been BSD/MIT licensed and as popular, that Microsoft etc. would not have come out with products featuring the same software but with proprietary extensions and closed licenses? Was makes you so sure that it would matter? The original software will still be there and free for any modification one would want to do.

cyphar 10y ago

Noted. Good to know that people have forgotten how hard the free software community had to fight to be able to even have free software. I don't understand the sudden amnesia when Microsoft releases one part of their stack under the MIT license while still enslaving users. It's doublethink.

stephenr 10y ago
Did I once mention proprietary software or Microsoft? Is that really how you see the software world, GPL vs Microsoft/proprietary?
- etatoby 10y ago
  Free software is pretty much the opposite of proprietary software, yes, and GPL is the single license that enabled the free software revolution we are all benefiting from. Sure, the battle against greed is far from over, but the benefits are already quite obvious. If people and companies had kept to proprietary EULA and BSD as the only options, we would still be in the dire situation we were in the 90s.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Free software is pretty much the opposite of proprietary software, yes, and GPL is the single license that enabled the free software revolution we are all benefiting from. I call BS. GPL just happened to have the GNU stack with it. If the same toolchain (gcc, etc) were released as BSD/MIT from the beginning, it would have been just as well or better.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      GNU was created on the basis of the GPL. It's not an accident that the "GNU stack had the GPL", it was a plan from the beginning to create a system which people could use in freedom. The toolchain would not exist if Stallman hadn't made the decision that user freedom was something he should work towards. And we wouldn't have any free software without GNU, because that's what the world was heading towards in the 70s and 80s. BSD would still be proprietary, since Stallman talked to Berkeley to convince the developers to release their improvements to Unix.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >GNU was created on the basis of the GPL. It's not an accident that the "GNU stack had the GPL", it was a plan from the beginning to create a system which people could use in freedom. The accident was that the plan was conceived by Stallman and involved GNU/GPL. What I'm saying is a similar plan with BSD/MIT licenses, if it was initiated by another guy first, would be just as good. In other words that the reason GNU/OSS got that far was that they provided software people needed at the right time -- not because they were GPL as opposed to BSD licensd.
        sidhu1f 10y ago
        What makes you so sure that, had the GNU stack been BSD/MIT licensed and as popular, that Microsoft etc. would not have come out with products featuring the same software but with proprietary extensions and closed licenses?
        stephenr 10y ago
        None of those things makes the original software unavailable to use.
        coldtea 10y ago
        >What makes you so sure that, had the GNU stack been BSD/MIT licensed and as popular, that Microsoft etc. would not have come out with products featuring the same software but with proprietary extensions and closed licenses? Was makes you so sure that it would matter? The original software will still be there and free for any modification one would want to do.