3 ms·
I agree that it is a fair assessment, the problem is the perspective. They want to facilitate integration of Open Source code into proprietary code, not the oth
by lolc 10y ago
I agree that it is a fair assessment, the problem is the perspective. They want to facilitate integration of Open Source code into proprietary code, not the other way around. I would interpret these statements to be read as "Linux Foundation has no respect for FOSS." Because apparently they don't accept what "free" stands for in "Free and Open Source Software"
> These requirements present serious risks to the preservation of proprietary software rights.
Which is why the GPL can be called "more free" than the BSD licenses. Code licensed under it is not "appropriable". In my view, that's a feature. In their view, that's a "restriction". I don't see how I should want other people applying their proprietary (read: way more restrictive than the GPL) licenses or not share the code at all. They want to, I don't want them to. Different perspective.
It is clear to me that the GNU/Linux world would be very fragmented, if it existed at all, were it not for the GPL.
- cr0sh 10y agoThe way I have always viewed the GPL is this: I write some code, and I want to share it with the world. But I don't want to just "give it away" - if that were the case, I'd make it "public domain". Instead, I license it as "GPL". My price to you, someone else who wants to use the code? Simple and cheap: If you make any changes to the code, and distribute it (binary or otherwise) publicly, you must give those changes back to the community, the public, and me the author, so that the code can continue to grow. Don't like that? Then don't use and change the code. Or don't distribute (sell or give away) the code. Basically, I consider it a way of paying for the code - by "paying it forward". Corporations should consider it a low price to pay, not a hindrance to business.