4 ms·

> What purpose of the LGPL is defeated? The purpose of /which/ LGPL? And that's the thing. After GPL demonstrated that it had teeth and got some case law under

> What purpose of the LGPL is defeated? The purpose of /which/ LGPL? And that's the thing. After GPL demonstrated that it had teeth and got some case law underneath it, the "family" of derivatives exploded, each one of them identifying as "open source" but each with their own additions, removals, modifications or other opinions on what "freedoms" they convey (mostly removals). There are those of us out here who believe that the core purpose of all of these licenses were defeated a long time ago when all of this legal swizzling first began. I personally hate GPLv3, AGPL, LGPLv3, etc. with a fiery burning passion; thank god we were able to see some transformative projects emerge under actually free licenses before everything got ruined.

mort96 3y ago
> The purpose of /which/ LGPL Either 2.1 or 3.0 I guess, the difference between the versions isn't that relevant to hedora's question. The GPL exists to protect users against companies which develop proprietary software. If you prioritize the freedom of companies to restrict users over the freedom of those users, it makes sense that you'd dislike the GPL style licenses.
freedomben 3y ago
> I personally hate GPLv3, AGPL, LGPLv3, etc. with a fiery burning passion; thank god we were able to see some transformative projects emerge under actually free licenses before everything got ruined. Why do you hate them so much? Is it strictly as a developer, or as a user? As a developer I've certainly felt constrained and annoyed by them at times, and I'm very glad there are alternative open source licenses available, but as a user I can't imagine a scenario where you would hate them. After all, the freedom they guarantee is to the user, not the developer. Even as a developer though, the family has it's place. I don't think Linux would be a thing had it had a more "permissive" license. That GPL is what forces the big corps to contribute their improvements back. If not for the GPL, I think it would be in a position similar to that of BSD, and the majority of users would have no choice but to use a proprietary OS
- bombcar 3y ago
  Notice the lack of "GPL" in that list, and I'm partially in agreement. The GPL is amazing and wonderful, but the various "attachments" of the GPL are more weaponized (and to the detriment of users!) than the GPL ever was. I'm glad the kernel stuck with GPLv2, and I wish other things had, too. A GPLv3 Linux Kernel would likely have helped a BSD tremendously, though but I think having everyone work on the same kernel without reservations has been an unmitigated good.
  - singpolyma3 3y ago
    GPLv3 isn't enough different from GPLv2 to matter in practice, usually. It's mostly clarifications like the cure provision.
    - jlokier 3y ago
      It's different enough that Apple thinks it's only safe for them to ship GPLv2 software on MacOS devices, not GPLv3. This might have something to do with the way they sign shipped versions and use TPM security to verify what's run, even though you can manually disable some of this if you want. So all GPL the software shipped on MacOS devices is stuck at the last version which used GPLv2, and they rewrote Samba which they had previously shipped, whose last GPLv2 version is too out of date to keep using.
  - mort96 3y ago
    Wait are you only angry at the AGPL? Or what are you calling attachments to the GPL? LGPL is a relaxation of the GPL, by the way.

mort96 3y ago

> The purpose of /which/ LGPL Either 2.1 or 3.0 I guess, the difference between the versions isn't that relevant to hedora's question. The GPL exists to protect users against companies which develop proprietary software. If you prioritize the freedom of companies to restrict users over the freedom of those users, it makes sense that you'd dislike the GPL style licenses.

freedomben 3y ago

> I personally hate GPLv3, AGPL, LGPLv3, etc. with a fiery burning passion; thank god we were able to see some transformative projects emerge under actually free licenses before everything got ruined. Why do you hate them so much? Is it strictly as a developer, or as a user? As a developer I've certainly felt constrained and annoyed by them at times, and I'm very glad there are alternative open source licenses available, but as a user I can't imagine a scenario where you would hate them. After all, the freedom they guarantee is to the user, not the developer. Even as a developer though, the family has it's place. I don't think Linux would be a thing had it had a more "permissive" license. That GPL is what forces the big corps to contribute their improvements back. If not for the GPL, I think it would be in a position similar to that of BSD, and the majority of users would have no choice but to use a proprietary OS

bombcar 3y ago
Notice the lack of "GPL" in that list, and I'm partially in agreement. The GPL is amazing and wonderful, but the various "attachments" of the GPL are more weaponized (and to the detriment of users!) than the GPL ever was. I'm glad the kernel stuck with GPLv2, and I wish other things had, too. A GPLv3 Linux Kernel would likely have helped a BSD tremendously, though but I think having everyone work on the same kernel without reservations has been an unmitigated good.
- singpolyma3 3y ago
  GPLv3 isn't enough different from GPLv2 to matter in practice, usually. It's mostly clarifications like the cure provision.
  - jlokier 3y ago
    It's different enough that Apple thinks it's only safe for them to ship GPLv2 software on MacOS devices, not GPLv3. This might have something to do with the way they sign shipped versions and use TPM security to verify what's run, even though you can manually disable some of this if you want. So all GPL the software shipped on MacOS devices is stuck at the last version which used GPLv2, and they rewrote Samba which they had previously shipped, whose last GPLv2 version is too out of date to keep using.
- mort96 3y ago
  Wait are you only angry at the AGPL? Or what are you calling attachments to the GPL? LGPL is a relaxation of the GPL, by the way.