3 ms·

On the topic of the license, I find most small projects that use GPL suffer from delusions of grandeur. First to address the readme. Their goal for switch to G

On the topic of the license, I find most small projects that use GPL suffer from delusions of grandeur. First to address the readme. Their goal for switch to GPL for closed devices is kind of pointless. For a closed device, they can still use it without modification. And even if they do modify it, how would you know. How would you prove it's your codebase they modified? The GPL does little to protect small projects. If they made money and got caught, they can just pay their way out of it. If they didn't make any money, well, no one would have probably found out until they they were a defunct company or the product was cancelled. Second, more on the delusions of grandeur. Let's be real, this project is a small project with very little chance to grow big. It might become the defacto X server for old tech, but I doubt it would be used for anything new. And even if it is, not for many. The GPL won't protect it because it's obscure. The GPL works for big high profile projects, like the Linux Kernel. It worked in the past because companies hadn't figured out a way around it, or that they can just ignore it and deal with the consequences later. They usually get away with it too, with little cost to them, as they have made their money. I personally avoid releasing any of my projects as GPL. Because the likelihood of any of my projects being huge is minimal, and if they go big, I can change the license then. Maybe a non open source license like the Fair Source License that then transitions to MIT or Apache after 1-2 years.

rixed 2y ago
The GPL is not about becoming huge, it's about building a community around shared software. The goal is not to prevent Microsoft from stealing your software, it is to promote the idea amongst software authors and users that software should be free to modify and share and that there should be no distinction between users and authors; There is no such statement with the MIT. I believe this makes sense regardless of the size of the software.
- Daegalus 2y ago
  Ok, I'll give you that argument, as I agree with a lot of it, but the authors are specifically using it as an anti-closed device/anti-corporate thing.
  - rixed 2y ago
    Indeed. I believe the bitterness is understandable but counter productive. I share the sentiment that it has a "delusion of grandeur" vibe that I also find annoying.
bawolff 2y ago
> And even if they do modify it, how would you know. How would you prove it's your codebase they modified? Via dissasembly? It isn't that hard. However i think you miss the point. GPL is more a statement of principles than anything else.

rixed 2y ago

The GPL is not about becoming huge, it's about building a community around shared software. The goal is not to prevent Microsoft from stealing your software, it is to promote the idea amongst software authors and users that software should be free to modify and share and that there should be no distinction between users and authors; There is no such statement with the MIT. I believe this makes sense regardless of the size of the software.

Daegalus 2y ago
Ok, I'll give you that argument, as I agree with a lot of it, but the authors are specifically using it as an anti-closed device/anti-corporate thing.
- rixed 2y ago
  Indeed. I believe the bitterness is understandable but counter productive. I share the sentiment that it has a "delusion of grandeur" vibe that I also find annoying.

bawolff 2y ago

> And even if they do modify it, how would you know. How would you prove it's your codebase they modified? Via dissasembly? It isn't that hard. However i think you miss the point. GPL is more a statement of principles than anything else.