3 ms·
> If you want to combine viral open-source code with toxic proprietary code, sure. Even the Linux kernel qualifies as toxic proprietary code for the simple rea
by josefx 10y ago
> If you want to combine viral open-source code with toxic proprietary code, sure.
Even the Linux kernel qualifies as toxic proprietary code for the simple reason that GPLv3 is not backwards compatible. If anything the GPL is toxic to any other open source license including itself. Others at least try to play well with each other.
- pekk 10y agoWhat is the point of GPLv3 if it is not allowed to have any difference from GPLv2?
- josefx 10y agoThat would be my question? It introduces an incompatible split with existing code that cannot be re-licensed by hand wave of the FSF for purely dogmatic reasons.
- TuringTest 10y ago> Even the Linux kernel qualifies as toxic proprietary code for the simple reason that GPLv3 is not backwards compatible. That is not true. Being "GPL compatible" is not the golden rule by which software is considered Free Software; granting the "4 user freedoms" is.[1] Since the GPLv2 grants those freedoms, it is Free Software. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en
- josefx 10y agoNow mix GPLv3 code with the Linux kernel without violating an FSF license. Of course that you cannot release the result just means that there are also zero users, so the freedoms of those zero users are preserved. Edit: I am not arguing from an ideological standpoint, just from the resulting compatibility and usability issues. The GPL 2 and 3 were both written to protect the four freedoms, that they are incompatible and that we now have to invest time and effort work around that even for free software is just ugly.
- TuringTest 10y agoYes, but that's also true for any non-GPL compatible license, not just the GPLv3. And it's a result of Linus Torwalds not using the GPLv2 as intended by removing the "any later version" clause.