3 ms·
> That’s ok, but you can’t hand wave away that GPL, especially v3+, is about protecting and defending the user (like tron), while MIT/BSD is not, by calling it
by jillesvangurp 3y ago
> That’s ok, but you can’t hand wave away that GPL, especially v3+, is about protecting and defending the user (like tron), while MIT/BSD is not, by calling it “vague notions of fairness” as if GPL hasn’t already seen wins in the courts… on this point I think some research might be due for me though.
It sacrifices the user's freedoms for this. Which is exactly the concern corporate lawyers have with this. Fine if that's what you want but the net result tends to be the vast majority of big companies pretending your project does not exist. Can't look, can't touch, can't use, etc. If a blanket ban on your project across most commercial users is what you are after, AGPL does the job.
- whiterknight 3y ago> vast majority of big companies pretending your project does not exist. Good. Even so that point is wrong as GPL software is widely used in the industry (Linux, gcc, gnu make, etc).
- kelnos 3y agoTo me, frankly, that would be the goal. For some of the things I work on, I would much rather a company be allergic to it, than believe they can do whatever they want with it. But for other things, I don't really care.