4 ms·

> Full-on GPL taints your software, such that you have to be extremely careful not to use any libraries that are GPL'd if you want to release it under any other

by zeveb 10y ago

> Full-on GPL taints your software, such that you have to be extremely careful not to use any libraries that are GPL'd if you want to release it under any other sort of license. Why would you want to release under any other sort of license? Why do you wish to restrict your users' right to use, modify & share code? > can you imagine the clusterfuck if, say, the NPM community defaulted to using GPL That sounds wonderful: an entire ecosystem of free software.

ksk 10y ago
> Why do you wish to restrict your users' right to use, modify & share code? Not everyone agrees that this is a right.
- moron4hire 10y ago
  Possession is nine tenths of the law. You have no right to tell people what to do with their own computers.
  - ksk 10y ago
    >You have no right to tell people what to do with their own computers. You seem confused. The discussion here is about copyright law and intellectual property licensing. Code is a series of 1s and 0s that can be duplicated at almost no cost. Me "possessing" it doesn't deprive anyone else of anything.
    - moron4hire 10y ago
      Exactly, but I'm not the one that is confused. You have no tangible property on which to seek your rent.
      - ksk 10y ago
        I have no clue what you're even talking about. Sorry, this will be my last reply.
CJefferson 10y ago
Except, I work on GPL v2 systems, and we can't link to GPL v3 libraries. No other license I've worked with has this incompatiblity problem.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > Except, I work on GPL v2 systems, and we can't link to GPL v3 libraries. The standard way to use GPL v2 is to use this verbiage: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. If someone doesn't do that, I don't know what to say.
  - detaro 10y ago
    That's the wrong direction. You can use v2 code with that sentence in the license in a v3 codebase, not vice-versa (unless you upgrade your codebase to v3 entirely, but since GPLv2 was explicitly mentioned that probably is not an option for whatever reason).
  - CJefferson 10y ago
    At some point in the far distant past, someone decided they didn't want to give the FSF the ability to apply any license they like to their software (which is reasonable, the FSF could in principle make GPL v4 -- All your source are belong to us). While that choice might have been a mistake, it would now be an impossible effort to get all contributor's permission to change, so we are stuck with v2.

by zeveb 10y ago

ksk 10y ago

> Why do you wish to restrict your users' right to use, modify & share code? Not everyone agrees that this is a right.

moron4hire 10y ago
Possession is nine tenths of the law. You have no right to tell people what to do with their own computers.
- ksk 10y ago
  >You have no right to tell people what to do with their own computers. You seem confused. The discussion here is about copyright law and intellectual property licensing. Code is a series of 1s and 0s that can be duplicated at almost no cost. Me "possessing" it doesn't deprive anyone else of anything.
  - moron4hire 10y ago
    Exactly, but I'm not the one that is confused. You have no tangible property on which to seek your rent.
    - ksk 10y ago
      I have no clue what you're even talking about. Sorry, this will be my last reply.

CJefferson 10y ago

Except, I work on GPL v2 systems, and we can't link to GPL v3 libraries. No other license I've worked with has this incompatiblity problem.

zeveb 10y ago
> Except, I work on GPL v2 systems, and we can't link to GPL v3 libraries. The standard way to use GPL v2 is to use this verbiage: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. If someone doesn't do that, I don't know what to say.
- detaro 10y ago
  That's the wrong direction. You can use v2 code with that sentence in the license in a v3 codebase, not vice-versa (unless you upgrade your codebase to v3 entirely, but since GPLv2 was explicitly mentioned that probably is not an option for whatever reason).
- CJefferson 10y ago
  At some point in the far distant past, someone decided they didn't want to give the FSF the ability to apply any license they like to their software (which is reasonable, the FSF could in principle make GPL v4 -- All your source are belong to us). While that choice might have been a mistake, it would now be an impossible effort to get all contributor's permission to change, so we are stuck with v2.