3 ms·
>which asks you to give back without being the license cancer that is the (A)GPL. fwiw, cancer isn't contagious, so if you touch (A)GPL 'cancer' then you would
by fnord123 5y ago
>which asks you to give back without being the license cancer that is the (A)GPL.
fwiw, cancer isn't contagious, so if you touch (A)GPL 'cancer' then you wouldn't get 'cancer'. If you wanted to disparage it, call it license herpes. Or license genital warts. Or license gonorrhoea (and you can flex that you know how to spell it).
Personally, I hope you can be convinced, some day, to see licenses as a tool for building communities. Some tools are appropriate for some communities and other tools for others. Nothing for everybody, something for everyone.
- hankman86 5y agoThat’s a fair argument to make, even though my counter point would be that first and foremost the (A)GPL excludes a community of developers who need to earn a living with their work. In fact, the FSF will call this “morally tainted”. That being said, the free software purists aren’t a particularly tolerant community. And again, I actually like and endorse copyleft in the form of the LGPL. So basically a license that can co-exist with others and doesn’t force it’s ideology on other people and their work.
- fnord123 5y agoGPL does not exclude a community of developers who need to earn a living to work. Linux, GCC and MySQL do not exclude people who are trying to earn a living from their sweat and toil. The GPL even says they can't impose any reason why people want to use the code whether it's in missile guidance systems, teledildonics, or ad networks. >That being said, the free software purists aren’t a particularly tolerant community. Sure the zealots of $BELIEF believe in $BELIEF and want others to do so as well. It's not a surprise.