4 ms·

You aren’t discussing the controversial part at all. You have laid out the part that everyone agrees with. GPLv2 means you pass your modifications back - easy.

You aren’t discussing the controversial part at all. You have laid out the part that everyone agrees with. GPLv2 means you pass your modifications back - easy. GPLv2 might mean that by calling a libraries static functions from your code, that is a “modification”, and now must include code that is not logically a modification at all. This is even more grey area if you dynamically link them - hard. “What is a derivative” has feed millions of lawyer’s family’s, imo this type of broad interpretation does not belong in OSS. Give it to me or don’t, I promise to pass my modifications back, but don’t pretend that integrating it into my code is modification that allows you to see what I do with it. LGPL makes more sense. But GPLv2/3 has a business model and that is why it is popular and complex.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> What is a derivative” has feed millions of lawyer’s family’s, imo this type of broad interpretation does not belong in OSS I am sorry but your view is dying out because it’s unrealistic. Most things in life have grey areas, most things in life have legal concerns and liability attached. Even the simplest possible things, like If you sell bicycles and someone breaks their neck, they could sue and there will be grey areas as to the bicycles’s quality. If you sell food and someone gets food poisoning, same thing. The fact that software developers could make millions and never worry about law, is a giant privilege and it’s disappearing because software is no longer just for kittens and porn, it is now everywhere and it’s responsible for life and limb
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  Show me where quality of software is in this discussion.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    That’s a different criteria. The software now has to compliant. Its not always higher quality
lelanthran 3y ago
I wasn't discussing any part at all, I was explaining why the goal of the project determines the license and not the preference of the authors. If the goal is to allow others to close off the product, then one license is suitable. If the goal is to prevent others from turning it into a closed source product, then you choose the other license. When the goal is "popularity amongst closed off companies", then one license makes sense. If the goal is "popularity for the community" then the other license makes sense. There was a no value in arguing over which is easier for companies unless the goal is popularity for companies and o close off. After all, any company that simply wants to use the software without redistribution doesn't really care.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> What is a derivative” has feed millions of lawyer’s family’s, imo this type of broad interpretation does not belong in OSS I am sorry but your view is dying out because it’s unrealistic. Most things in life have grey areas, most things in life have legal concerns and liability attached. Even the simplest possible things, like If you sell bicycles and someone breaks their neck, they could sue and there will be grey areas as to the bicycles’s quality. If you sell food and someone gets food poisoning, same thing. The fact that software developers could make millions and never worry about law, is a giant privilege and it’s disappearing because software is no longer just for kittens and porn, it is now everywhere and it’s responsible for life and limb

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
Show me where quality of software is in this discussion.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  That’s a different criteria. The software now has to compliant. Its not always higher quality

lelanthran 3y ago

I wasn't discussing any part at all, I was explaining why the goal of the project determines the license and not the preference of the authors. If the goal is to allow others to close off the product, then one license is suitable. If the goal is to prevent others from turning it into a closed source product, then you choose the other license. When the goal is "popularity amongst closed off companies", then one license makes sense. If the goal is "popularity for the community" then the other license makes sense. There was a no value in arguing over which is easier for companies unless the goal is popularity for companies and o close off. After all, any company that simply wants to use the software without redistribution doesn't really care.