3 ms·

Am I missing something? The LGPL only applies to the library itself--you can dynamically link to it from proprietary code. So in this hypothetical scenario, som

Am I missing something? The LGPL only applies to the library itself--you can dynamically link to it from proprietary code. So in this hypothetical scenario, someone could just write a terminal emulator (or IDE, or what have you) that dynamically links to libghostty and put as much telemetry in it as they wanted, couldn't they?

phkahler 1y ago
>> Am I missing something? No, you're not but I did! So GPL then. Maybe I just wanted to make up a scenario. I'm not sure why MIT/BSD have become so popular, they have their place but I don't think they have any place in software infrastructure.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- yunohn 1y ago
  I truly don’t understand nor follow what you mean? What makes MIT/BAD bad for software infra?
  - phkahler 1y ago
    >> I truly don’t understand nor follow what you mean? What makes MIT/BAD bad for software infra? You should have access to the source for your infra as a user of it. MIT/BSD allow people to deploy without offering source, so they can do whatever they want with it and then you get to use it. TiVoisation is more than possible among many other user-hostile options. "But you can always get the source!" is not a valid response - you can't get the source for this thing that's running right now. Freedom to deny other peoples freedom is no part of "Free Software" but it goes on all the time with "Open Source".
    - yunohn 1y ago
      That is a valid POV I hadn’t fully considered. But I would hesitate to blame this on the original OSS author’s license choice - the vendor can always provide source even without the force of GPL. Heck, rather making it GPL means almost no hosting company will provide it.