4 ms·
> But GPL itself should not be considered open-source The term "open source" has a clear, accepted, and well-understood definition -- http://opensource.org/doc
by cabalamat 18y ago
> But GPL itself should not be considered open-source
The term "open source" has a clear, accepted, and well-understood definition -- http://opensource.org/docs/osd http://opensource.org/docs/osd -- and the GPL clearly meets this definition. If you don't like the GPL, fine. But don't say that it isn't open source, because that's just not true.
If you choose to give your own private meanings to words, you risk being misunderstood. You also risk being seen as dishonest.
- rw 18y agocf. how the words "queer" and "gay" are being reclaimed by the LGBTQ community.
- bad_user 18y agoI know the term has rules for being used, but those rules are too permissive if GPL is accepted (not to mention GPL 3 which now includes hardware restrictions). If I want to run away with a library and do my own thing, I don't see a problem with that if I'm giving back the changes to the library itself. Otherwise it cannot be viewed as a public good, as some might suggest. You can't compare a public good, such as a road to GPL software, because you aren't required to transport your merchandise for free on that road ... I know, stupid analogy, but you get my point. Proprietary software shouldn't be considered a virus that we should get rid of, that's not an open mindset in my book.
- rbanffy 18y ago"GPL 3 which now includes hardware restrictions"?! WTF?! GPL3 _FORBIDS_ hardware restrictions! It protects _YOUR_ right to use _YOUR STUFF_ the way _YOU_ want. How that could possibly be construed as a restriction?