4 ms·
I don't develop OpenWRT, but I use it extensively. The GPL is one of the best tools we have for the software side of the right to repair, especially the GPLv3 (
by trelane 4y ago
I don't develop OpenWRT, but I use it extensively. The GPL is one of the best tools we have for the software side of the right to repair, especially the GPLv3 (anti-tivoization provisions).
Just because you don't actively develop something doesn't mean that you won't find the economy and wider options and market forces it provides useful.
- daveguy 4y agoTiVo will never surpass the creativity of others. I whole-heartedly agree with anti-restriction clauses. Like "No lawsuits against users or other creators for "infringing patents" by using this software, if they are not, in another way, infringing. Otherwise, you lose your license."
- daveguy 4y agoNothing about the GPLv3 license created that except that the authors wanted (or maybe didn't really want to) release under that license. And if they like to release under that license. Good for them! But I don't think they should require other software creators to release under the same license. And that's why I won't use GPL software other than LGPL.
- trelane 4y agoYou said > The distinction is 100% about what a future developer can do or not do. I pointed out that this was incorrect. > But I don't think they should require other software creators to release under the same license. So you think end-user-hostile software is fine. I guess we disagree.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]