53 ms·

Yet another case of GPL virality causing more issues than it solves. E: Downvoters, have you read the article? The program started a new process for each addre

by junon 5y ago

Yet another case of GPL virality causing more issues than it solves. E: Downvoters, have you read the article? The program started a new process for each address lookup instead of using a library because that library is GPL. Shall we have a discussion?

AstralStorm 5y ago
No. That is the case of Linus Torvalds not using the standard "or later" clause. He has his (bad) reasons. The incompatibility is caused by "lack of restrictions" clause. Without that, GPL becomes essentially BSD with all the corporate thievery that entails.
- yakubin 5y ago
  The "or later" clause is a backdoor. Not wanting backdoors in your license doesn't seem like a bad reason to me.
  - globular-toast 5y ago
    So what's the solution? You can use a permissive licence which has a huge "backdoor" allowing derivatives to turn up under any licence, including GPLv3 (or v4). Or you can use GPLv2 with no "or later" clause which means you get situations like this.
    - yakubin 5y ago
      This incompatibility is a unique feature of GPL. Wherever it goes, it's incompatible with something (in this case, with itself). You could use MPL or CDDL and, as long as GPL isn't involved, you won't have problems with license compatibility. However, in the case of the Linux kernel (which "perf" is distributed with) changing the license is not an option --- no CLA and, even if it was practical to ask so many people for permission, many contributors are dead now. So here the only option is using dependencies which are compatible with GPLv2. So maybe we need a new library to replace libbfd, which would be more permissively licensed.
      - globular-toast 5y ago
        It's not a feature of GPL, it's an unfortunate side-effect of copyleft. If you have a better way to "disable" copyright than copyleft then I'm sure it would supersede the GPL.
        josefx 5y ago
        > If you have a better way to "disable" copyright than copyleft then I'm sure it would supersede the GPL. In absence of copyright anyone could publish binaries build on GPL code without sharing the sources. So a central feature of the GPL would cease to be if copyright was in any way disabled. Saying the GPL is about disabling copyright is about as true as McDonalds being about healthy diets.
        yakubin 5y ago
        MPL and CDDL are copyleft licenses as well. It is a feature of GPL.
- kaikki 5y ago
  What is a good source to get an understanding of all the Licenses and their relation?
  - spicybright 5y ago
    I've used this in the past. https://choosealicense.com/ https://choosealicense.com/
  - Someone 5y ago
    It isn’t easy, but these can help: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so... has a feature matrix for about 40 licenses - https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/solution/joinup-licensing-assistant/jla-find-and-compare-software-licenses https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/solution/joinup-... has a comprehensive set of features you might want a license to have, and shows matching licenses. You still would have to read up on what terms such as “trademark”, “copyright” or “copyleft” mean.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    Here's a brief summary of major licenses: MIT, X11, BSD (2- or 3-clause), and more similar ones I can't name off the top of my head: these are the basic do-what-you-want license, the only requirements are things that every (good) license already has, such as standard limitation-of-warranty clauses and retention of copyright notice requirements. Apache (v2): This is the next stage up, which means that the text is lengthier and somewhat denser legalese, but also covers more topics such as trademarks and especially patents. The patent clause here includes a provision that any patent licenses are revoked if you sue the authors for patent infringement. MPL (v2): This is a weak copyleft requirement, which means that you must provide any changes to the source code when you distribute the binary and additionally the resultant code must be licensed under the same terms, although it only applies on a per-file basis. EPL, CDDL are broadly similar to the MPL, with a few differences in the legal minutiae. LGPL: Weak copyleft again, except now it's on a per-library basis. [Although, to be honest, the definition of per-library basis isn't entirely clear for non-C/C++ code.] GPL: Strong copyleft, which means that you pretty much have to use GPL if you reuse the code. AGPL: Even stronger than GPL, you have to distribute sources to anyone who uses your code over the network. With the GPL family, there's a distinction between version 2.1 and version 3 that retains relevance, because some people objected to the changes in GPLv3 (notably the anti-Tivoization clause and patent clause changes) and refused to move to GPLv3, with the Linux kernel being the most notable project to refuse to do so. As for relation, well, any license more complicated than Apache includes lots of legal minutiae that makes it somewhat hard to render judgement if two licenses are compatible or not. In general, though, you can usually use an earlier license in this list in a project that uses a later license, but usually only if both licenses are the latest version (as the most recent updates added some compatibility escape hatches).
- kevincox 5y ago
  "or later" is a hack to get around the fact that the GPL is basically incompatible (I need a better word because this is overloaded) with itself if you change the name. If you want to use GPL and GPLRenamed libraries in the same project the only option is to relicence the project under both licences. This may be possible if you have few dependencies and few authors. But if you want to depend on a new library after some authors have become uncontactable you basically can't.
- josteink 5y ago
  > That is the case of Linus Torvalds not using the standard "or later" clause. He has his (bad) reasons. Linus does not think GPLv3 is a good or fitting license for the Linux-kernel and that it changes too much things to be considered a new version of the same license as GPLv2. So he refuses to add the “or later” backdoor which would effectively relicense “his” kernel with a license he does not approve of. Is that not his right?
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    It is, but we can still be petty about it.
- jraph 5y ago
  Well, I don't think I agree with him and would licence GPL code with the "or later" clause, but he has a very reasonable and convincing argument against it. See this video of him explaining his take on GPLv3 and the "or later" clause at Deb Conf if you are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU
dvdkhlng 5y ago
IMO it's not "GPL virality" that is at the root of the issue here. The authors' decision to license theis works this way causes the problem. You can still ask both libraries' authors for relicensing their work in a less restricted / more compatible way. If they don't want to do that, then being authors and owning their copyrights, that's their right to do. That's nothing I would blame on the GPL. I mean we should be grateful that these authors made their works available free of cost in the first place.
- for1nner 5y ago
  > The authors' decision to license theis works this way causes the problem. I'm not sure how you can rationally make an argument for a framework that literally limits the use of improved or more performant code/technology/understanding simply because it does not share a philosophical view of IP/ownership/sharing. This is the core of the problem with IP in the real world as well, and I find it mind-boggling that we don't look at the SYSTEM and see it as problematic.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    It doesn't limit it any more than if it were proprietary and you couldn't afford it.
  - aseipp 5y ago
    Actual IP law and how it conducts itself in the real world has plenty of issues to be sorted out, but there are tons of potential "inefficiencies" in the real world that could be exploited and rectified across a vast array of things, but aren't, due to combinations of social politics, law, philosophy, etc preventing it. That some potential efficiency is on the table in theory, but can't be reaped due to those things, is nowhere remotely close to "mind boggling"
- nickitolas 5y ago
  As I understand it relicensing in many open source projects can be a very complicated matter, since in some cases it requires getting permission from all past contributors (Which could number in the hundreds)
Spivak 5y ago
It seems odd that the takeaway is "GPL sucks because it got in my way" and not "both authors' explicit wishes were respected." Assuming that this is in error and this isn't what the authors wanted to happen then it's fixable by someone changing their license.
- ziml77 5y ago
  It's fixable with a license change, but in practice that's impossible for large projects. Without a CLA, every individual who's contributed is a copyright owner. If you can't get every single one of them to agree to change it, then the license is stuck. And it doesn't matter if the reason you can't get them to agree is because they've become uncontactable or died.
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    If they're dead then they're not going to stop you from changing the license. What are they gonna do? Sue you from beyond the grave?
    - faho 5y ago
      Inheritance exists.
    - CodeWriter23 5y ago
      Their heirs could do precisely that.
      - colejohnson66 5y ago
        Yep. It’s how the Marvin Gaye lawsuits these past few years have been able to happen (despite him being dead). His estate is suing.
    - junon 5y ago
      IANAL but I believe a Qui Tam could take place by surviving family. Or inherited copyrights, etc.
lnxg33k1 5y ago
I guess MIT and Apache would be better, so that company can make billions on the code and contributors would still be poor (see AAPL -> FreeBSD)
- NelsonMinar 5y ago
  You understand there's nothing in the GPL that prevents companies from making billions on the code without compensating the contributors?
  - lnxg33k1 5y ago
    The thing is with GPL you have to contribute back, see how much Linux has grown in functionalities and how backwards are other kernels with MIT --- You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
    - shrimp_emoji 5y ago
      But companies wouldn't use it anyway since it's GPL. Enter MPLv2, with the best of both worlds: - not viral copyleft - but users DO have to contribute back
      - jabl 5y ago
        MPLv2 is a fine weak copyleft license, but I'm not really sure it prevents people from not contributing back if that's what they want: just put your proprietary code in a different file, add minimal API's to the MPL code so you can use it. So in that sense it's only very marginally 'better' than a fully permissive license.
simion314 5y ago
> more issues than it solves. Can you explain how you reach this conclusion? Assuming the GPL did not exist and the author would have made stuff proprietary, would that be better ? Some people like me would share code with GPL3 or later, why the f* should we give it to you as BSD? are you running on your devices only BSD code or MIT code ? or are you running proprietary software but for some reason making all stuff BSD will make your job easier since you could mindlesly copy paste shit in your proprietary stuff?
- adwn 5y ago
  > Assuming the GPL did not exist and the author would have made stuff proprietary, would that be better ? That's a false dichotomy – there are many more open source licenses which wouldn't have led to the problem described in the article.
  - simion314 5y ago
    But respect the author decision, maybe the "problem" is what the author desired to happen.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
The root cause is copyright. If it were to be abolished, no one would ever have to think about licensing ever again. None of this pain would exist. Think about all the time that would be saved when people no longer need to think about all this lawyer bullshit.
- junon 5y ago
  Not sure if this is a pisstake on my argument, but a world without copyright (or something similar) would be a world of endless exploitation and stifled innovation.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Copyright as it exists today does an awful lot of exploitation-enabling and innovation-stifling in itself. (And that's ignoring the rest of the IP suite.)
    - junon 5y ago
      This is like saying "cops today do a lot of nasty stuff, let's get rid of all cops". The result is pure, unmitigated anarchy, looting, murder, and lawlessness. I don't find either to be useful lines of thinking.
      - matheusmoreira 5y ago
        Not really. Things would be pretty simple. You see something? You can copy it. Not a single legalese document in sight. Don't compare this stuff to police brutality, looting, murder. They're not even in the same realm. Intellectual property is just ideas and absurd notions of ownership. It's like trying to own numbers. The real brutality is sending people to jail over this.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > a world without copyright (or something similar) would be a world of endless exploitation and stifled innovation Says who? The copyright monopolists? There's plenty of historical evidence to the contrary: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28330810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28330810 It seems obvious in hindsight. Less monopolies lead to more competition and better products. Even the US engaged in such infringement.
bityard 5y ago
With the "viral" name-calling you have already demonstrated that you don't want a rational discussion.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  No, using the normal term does not demonstrate that.
tlamponi 5y ago
> E: Downvoters, have you read the article? The program started a new process for each address lookup instead > of using a library because that library is GPL. > > Shall we have a discussion? Yeah no, they simply had a bad alternative implementation which could have been just as fast as the licence incompatible library call: > non-bfd, without patch: 7m59s > non-bfd, with patch: 15s > bfd: 15s -- https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=911815#38 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=911815#38 The same could have happened due to other reasons for alternative implementation, that range from availability of more than one implementation with different advantages and disadvantages, different OS the code needs to run on, or simply preference. Blaming the license in this case is just short-sighted and with the wording used it just shows a bias of yours against the GPL, but not actual will to participate in a meaningful discussion on the linked thematic.

by junon 5y ago

AstralStorm 5y ago

No. That is the case of Linus Torvalds not using the standard "or later" clause. He has his (bad) reasons. The incompatibility is caused by "lack of restrictions" clause. Without that, GPL becomes essentially BSD with all the corporate thievery that entails.

yakubin 5y ago
The "or later" clause is a backdoor. Not wanting backdoors in your license doesn't seem like a bad reason to me.
- globular-toast 5y ago
  So what's the solution? You can use a permissive licence which has a huge "backdoor" allowing derivatives to turn up under any licence, including GPLv3 (or v4). Or you can use GPLv2 with no "or later" clause which means you get situations like this.
  - yakubin 5y ago
    This incompatibility is a unique feature of GPL. Wherever it goes, it's incompatible with something (in this case, with itself). You could use MPL or CDDL and, as long as GPL isn't involved, you won't have problems with license compatibility. However, in the case of the Linux kernel (which "perf" is distributed with) changing the license is not an option --- no CLA and, even if it was practical to ask so many people for permission, many contributors are dead now. So here the only option is using dependencies which are compatible with GPLv2. So maybe we need a new library to replace libbfd, which would be more permissively licensed.
    - globular-toast 5y ago
      It's not a feature of GPL, it's an unfortunate side-effect of copyleft. If you have a better way to "disable" copyright than copyleft then I'm sure it would supersede the GPL.
      - josefx 5y ago
        > If you have a better way to "disable" copyright than copyleft then I'm sure it would supersede the GPL. In absence of copyright anyone could publish binaries build on GPL code without sharing the sources. So a central feature of the GPL would cease to be if copyright was in any way disabled. Saying the GPL is about disabling copyright is about as true as McDonalds being about healthy diets.
      - yakubin 5y ago
        MPL and CDDL are copyleft licenses as well. It is a feature of GPL.
kaikki 5y ago
What is a good source to get an understanding of all the Licenses and their relation?
- spicybright 5y ago
  I've used this in the past. https://choosealicense.com/ https://choosealicense.com/
- Someone 5y ago
  It isn’t easy, but these can help: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so... has a feature matrix for about 40 licenses - https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/solution/joinup-licensing-assistant/jla-find-and-compare-software-licenses https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/solution/joinup-... has a comprehensive set of features you might want a license to have, and shows matching licenses. You still would have to read up on what terms such as “trademark”, “copyright” or “copyleft” mean.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  Here's a brief summary of major licenses: MIT, X11, BSD (2- or 3-clause), and more similar ones I can't name off the top of my head: these are the basic do-what-you-want license, the only requirements are things that every (good) license already has, such as standard limitation-of-warranty clauses and retention of copyright notice requirements. Apache (v2): This is the next stage up, which means that the text is lengthier and somewhat denser legalese, but also covers more topics such as trademarks and especially patents. The patent clause here includes a provision that any patent licenses are revoked if you sue the authors for patent infringement. MPL (v2): This is a weak copyleft requirement, which means that you must provide any changes to the source code when you distribute the binary and additionally the resultant code must be licensed under the same terms, although it only applies on a per-file basis. EPL, CDDL are broadly similar to the MPL, with a few differences in the legal minutiae. LGPL: Weak copyleft again, except now it's on a per-library basis. [Although, to be honest, the definition of per-library basis isn't entirely clear for non-C/C++ code.] GPL: Strong copyleft, which means that you pretty much have to use GPL if you reuse the code. AGPL: Even stronger than GPL, you have to distribute sources to anyone who uses your code over the network. With the GPL family, there's a distinction between version 2.1 and version 3 that retains relevance, because some people objected to the changes in GPLv3 (notably the anti-Tivoization clause and patent clause changes) and refused to move to GPLv3, with the Linux kernel being the most notable project to refuse to do so. As for relation, well, any license more complicated than Apache includes lots of legal minutiae that makes it somewhat hard to render judgement if two licenses are compatible or not. In general, though, you can usually use an earlier license in this list in a project that uses a later license, but usually only if both licenses are the latest version (as the most recent updates added some compatibility escape hatches).
kevincox 5y ago
"or later" is a hack to get around the fact that the GPL is basically incompatible (I need a better word because this is overloaded) with itself if you change the name. If you want to use GPL and GPLRenamed libraries in the same project the only option is to relicence the project under both licences. This may be possible if you have few dependencies and few authors. But if you want to depend on a new library after some authors have become uncontactable you basically can't.
josteink 5y ago
> That is the case of Linus Torvalds not using the standard "or later" clause. He has his (bad) reasons. Linus does not think GPLv3 is a good or fitting license for the Linux-kernel and that it changes too much things to be considered a new version of the same license as GPLv2. So he refuses to add the “or later” backdoor which would effectively relicense “his” kernel with a license he does not approve of. Is that not his right?
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  It is, but we can still be petty about it.
jraph 5y ago
Well, I don't think I agree with him and would licence GPL code with the "or later" clause, but he has a very reasonable and convincing argument against it. See this video of him explaining his take on GPLv3 and the "or later" clause at Deb Conf if you are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

dvdkhlng 5y ago

IMO it's not "GPL virality" that is at the root of the issue here. The authors' decision to license theis works this way causes the problem. You can still ask both libraries' authors for relicensing their work in a less restricted / more compatible way. If they don't want to do that, then being authors and owning their copyrights, that's their right to do. That's nothing I would blame on the GPL. I mean we should be grateful that these authors made their works available free of cost in the first place.

for1nner 5y ago
> The authors' decision to license theis works this way causes the problem. I'm not sure how you can rationally make an argument for a framework that literally limits the use of improved or more performant code/technology/understanding simply because it does not share a philosophical view of IP/ownership/sharing. This is the core of the problem with IP in the real world as well, and I find it mind-boggling that we don't look at the SYSTEM and see it as problematic.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  It doesn't limit it any more than if it were proprietary and you couldn't afford it.
- aseipp 5y ago
  Actual IP law and how it conducts itself in the real world has plenty of issues to be sorted out, but there are tons of potential "inefficiencies" in the real world that could be exploited and rectified across a vast array of things, but aren't, due to combinations of social politics, law, philosophy, etc preventing it. That some potential efficiency is on the table in theory, but can't be reaped due to those things, is nowhere remotely close to "mind boggling"
nickitolas 5y ago
As I understand it relicensing in many open source projects can be a very complicated matter, since in some cases it requires getting permission from all past contributors (Which could number in the hundreds)

Spivak 5y ago

It seems odd that the takeaway is "GPL sucks because it got in my way" and not "both authors' explicit wishes were respected." Assuming that this is in error and this isn't what the authors wanted to happen then it's fixable by someone changing their license.

ziml77 5y ago
It's fixable with a license change, but in practice that's impossible for large projects. Without a CLA, every individual who's contributed is a copyright owner. If you can't get every single one of them to agree to change it, then the license is stuck. And it doesn't matter if the reason you can't get them to agree is because they've become uncontactable or died.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  If they're dead then they're not going to stop you from changing the license. What are they gonna do? Sue you from beyond the grave?
  - faho 5y ago
    Inheritance exists.
  - CodeWriter23 5y ago
    Their heirs could do precisely that.
    - colejohnson66 5y ago
      Yep. It’s how the Marvin Gaye lawsuits these past few years have been able to happen (despite him being dead). His estate is suing.
  - junon 5y ago
    IANAL but I believe a Qui Tam could take place by surviving family. Or inherited copyrights, etc.

lnxg33k1 5y ago

I guess MIT and Apache would be better, so that company can make billions on the code and contributors would still be poor (see AAPL -> FreeBSD)

NelsonMinar 5y ago
You understand there's nothing in the GPL that prevents companies from making billions on the code without compensating the contributors?
- lnxg33k1 5y ago
  The thing is with GPL you have to contribute back, see how much Linux has grown in functionalities and how backwards are other kernels with MIT --- You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
  - shrimp_emoji 5y ago
    But companies wouldn't use it anyway since it's GPL. Enter MPLv2, with the best of both worlds: - not viral copyleft - but users DO have to contribute back
    - jabl 5y ago
      MPLv2 is a fine weak copyleft license, but I'm not really sure it prevents people from not contributing back if that's what they want: just put your proprietary code in a different file, add minimal API's to the MPL code so you can use it. So in that sense it's only very marginally 'better' than a fully permissive license.

simion314 5y ago

> more issues than it solves. Can you explain how you reach this conclusion? Assuming the GPL did not exist and the author would have made stuff proprietary, would that be better ? Some people like me would share code with GPL3 or later, why the f* should we give it to you as BSD? are you running on your devices only BSD code or MIT code ? or are you running proprietary software but for some reason making all stuff BSD will make your job easier since you could mindlesly copy paste shit in your proprietary stuff?

adwn 5y ago
> Assuming the GPL did not exist and the author would have made stuff proprietary, would that be better ? That's a false dichotomy – there are many more open source licenses which wouldn't have led to the problem described in the article.
- simion314 5y ago
  But respect the author decision, maybe the "problem" is what the author desired to happen.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

The root cause is copyright. If it were to be abolished, no one would ever have to think about licensing ever again. None of this pain would exist. Think about all the time that would be saved when people no longer need to think about all this lawyer bullshit.

junon 5y ago
Not sure if this is a pisstake on my argument, but a world without copyright (or something similar) would be a world of endless exploitation and stifled innovation.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Copyright as it exists today does an awful lot of exploitation-enabling and innovation-stifling in itself. (And that's ignoring the rest of the IP suite.)
  - junon 5y ago
    This is like saying "cops today do a lot of nasty stuff, let's get rid of all cops". The result is pure, unmitigated anarchy, looting, murder, and lawlessness. I don't find either to be useful lines of thinking.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      Not really. Things would be pretty simple. You see something? You can copy it. Not a single legalese document in sight. Don't compare this stuff to police brutality, looting, murder. They're not even in the same realm. Intellectual property is just ideas and absurd notions of ownership. It's like trying to own numbers. The real brutality is sending people to jail over this.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > a world without copyright (or something similar) would be a world of endless exploitation and stifled innovation Says who? The copyright monopolists? There's plenty of historical evidence to the contrary: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28330810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28330810 It seems obvious in hindsight. Less monopolies lead to more competition and better products. Even the US engaged in such infringement.

bityard 5y ago

With the "viral" name-calling you have already demonstrated that you don't want a rational discussion.

Dylan16807 5y ago
No, using the normal term does not demonstrate that.

tlamponi 5y ago

> E: Downvoters, have you read the article? The program started a new process for each address lookup instead > of using a library because that library is GPL. > > Shall we have a discussion? Yeah no, they simply had a bad alternative implementation which could have been just as fast as the licence incompatible library call: > non-bfd, without patch: 7m59s > non-bfd, with patch: 15s > bfd: 15s -- https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=911815#38 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=911815#38 The same could have happened due to other reasons for alternative implementation, that range from availability of more than one implementation with different advantages and disadvantages, different OS the code needs to run on, or simply preference. Blaming the license in this case is just short-sighted and with the wording used it just shows a bias of yours against the GPL, but not actual will to participate in a meaningful discussion on the linked thematic.