4 ms·

Some people like being nice and that's great! However, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in authors who put their blood and sweat into the softwar

by vore 4y ago

Some people like being nice and that's great! However, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in authors who put their blood and sweat into the software they write and expecting some kind of concession for it. If that's not what you want to do, then that's your choice. But flippantly characterizing authors who really only want the source code to be made public as "punitive" and "especially unsavory" really rubs me the wrong way when they're basically giving away their labor for free – it's downright altruistic compared to the unsavory, punitive measures many corporate entities would rather take.

Joel_Mckay 4y ago
"punitive" = karma -8 QED I never inferred other people should choose a specific license, but rather stated the fact GPL can contaminate large bodies of work completely unrelated to community projects (mostly v3 I take issue with). The state of Steam game compatibility is a demonstration of the conflicting use-cases hobbling a platforms potential. In my opinion LGPL is better for libraries as if you modify lib source it obligates community participation, but doesn't force your entire project into public view when a linker touches the wrong GPL lib. We can disagree, and from each perspective believe we are correct. I'll stick with Apache 2.0, as its better suited for my projects. Enhance your calm. =)
- pabs3 4y ago
  > obligates community participation Nothing in the GPL/LGPL requires this, only distributing sources down to your users, who may or may not then redistribute the sources back upstream to the community.
  - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
    See the post on the LGPL static-linking issue for porting above, and why the wxWidget library license had to create an exception. The project contamination happens even with the LGPL. The subject was contaminating licenses, and why they are not appropriate in some situations. Cheers =)
    - pabs3 4y ago
      > The subject was contaminating licenses Sure, I was just pointing out a misconception in your understanding of these licenses. They only require distributing downstream to your users, not back to the upstream community.
      - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
        Having various people threatening patent/legal enforcement is another issue. One may believe porting to another platform like ARM64 with a patch would be clear, but people often confuse GPL means free as in free beer... it isn't... and some get extremely aggressive/possessive over mundane issues. I go by the lawyers consensus, not some opinion on the internet from some unknown region of the world. Note, the user-base doesn't care, they only want a program to work on their platform. Some upstream publishers on the other hand can be disrespectful at times, as some can assume the worst... it usually has nothing to do with the FOSS foundations themselves. Thanks for your opinion though, it is good to see people still interested in community projects. Happy computing, =)

by vore 4y ago

Joel_Mckay 4y ago

"punitive" = karma -8 QED I never inferred other people should choose a specific license, but rather stated the fact GPL can contaminate large bodies of work completely unrelated to community projects (mostly v3 I take issue with). The state of Steam game compatibility is a demonstration of the conflicting use-cases hobbling a platforms potential. In my opinion LGPL is better for libraries as if you modify lib source it obligates community participation, but doesn't force your entire project into public view when a linker touches the wrong GPL lib. We can disagree, and from each perspective believe we are correct. I'll stick with Apache 2.0, as its better suited for my projects. Enhance your calm. =)

pabs3 4y ago
> obligates community participation Nothing in the GPL/LGPL requires this, only distributing sources down to your users, who may or may not then redistribute the sources back upstream to the community.
- Joel_Mckay 4y ago
  See the post on the LGPL static-linking issue for porting above, and why the wxWidget library license had to create an exception. The project contamination happens even with the LGPL. The subject was contaminating licenses, and why they are not appropriate in some situations. Cheers =)
  - pabs3 4y ago
    > The subject was contaminating licenses Sure, I was just pointing out a misconception in your understanding of these licenses. They only require distributing downstream to your users, not back to the upstream community.
    - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
      Having various people threatening patent/legal enforcement is another issue. One may believe porting to another platform like ARM64 with a patch would be clear, but people often confuse GPL means free as in free beer... it isn't... and some get extremely aggressive/possessive over mundane issues. I go by the lawyers consensus, not some opinion on the internet from some unknown region of the world. Note, the user-base doesn't care, they only want a program to work on their platform. Some upstream publishers on the other hand can be disrespectful at times, as some can assume the worst... it usually has nothing to do with the FOSS foundations themselves. Thanks for your opinion though, it is good to see people still interested in community projects. Happy computing, =)