3 ms·

I am mostly just an anti-contaminating license proponent. Porting to multiple platforms gets complicated if you include a 3rd party commercial library with a pr

I am mostly just an anti-contaminating license proponent. Porting to multiple platforms gets complicated if you include a 3rd party commercial library with a project that on linking demands it also become publicly accessible. For example, if someone wants to do something creative... they shouldn't have to cite 400 different peoples licenses. That isn't sustainable or fun. I will stick with Apache 2.0, but understand different folks have other use-cases =3

pocksuppet 1mo ago
That is why the FSF invented just one GPL, and said everyone should use this one or later. Then when they invented another one, it was automatically compatible. This way, the license is compatible, and you don't have to give up any freedoms.
- Joel_Mckay 1mo ago
  GPL and LGPL works for a lot of people, but becomes a persistent issue when porting to other OS. They both still become a contaminating license if you have to static link something, embed 3rd party blobs, or even use icons for a consistent user interface experience. Having a less restrictive FOSS compatible license that doesn't obligate people to modify the general purpose libraries for their edge case has proven important. GPL only truly makes sense if targeting an OS supporting shared-object library paradigms. This is part of the reason why 95% of commercial Applications are running in an emulated/wrapper on the nix platforms. The year of the Linux Desktop is still a ways off, and the foundational library structures are under constant upgrade or permutation. Snap/Flatpak/AppImage and Docker/RancherVM were all designed to try and mitigate the compatibility chaos of perpetual nix Beta release cultures. It has some advantages, but also a lot of disadvantages similar to the Butterfly Effect bugs when something with the same name slightly changes behavior. =3
  - cindyllm 1mo ago
    [dead]
  - pocksuppet 1mo ago
    The GPL excludes system libraries from contamination issues.
    - Joel_Mckay 1mo ago
      LGPL does not allow static linking without disclosure. It is why the wxWidgets has a license that allows creating monolithic commercial blob dependent binaries for Windows, Linux Gtk/X11, and MacOS. https://wxwidgets.org/about/licence/ https://wxwidgets.org/about/licence/ People should not static link GPL/LGPL code to closed source blobs, and expect copyright/copyleft trolls to leave their project violating licenses. =3
      - pocksuppet 1mo ago
        Why would you want to not disclose that you used an LGPL library?
        Joel_Mckay 1mo ago
        LGPL requires whatever you static link it with is GPL/OSS. This is sometimes impossible with mystery binary blobs from manufacturers. =3

pocksuppet 1mo ago

That is why the FSF invented just one GPL, and said everyone should use this one or later. Then when they invented another one, it was automatically compatible. This way, the license is compatible, and you don't have to give up any freedoms.

Joel_Mckay 1mo ago
GPL and LGPL works for a lot of people, but becomes a persistent issue when porting to other OS. They both still become a contaminating license if you have to static link something, embed 3rd party blobs, or even use icons for a consistent user interface experience. Having a less restrictive FOSS compatible license that doesn't obligate people to modify the general purpose libraries for their edge case has proven important. GPL only truly makes sense if targeting an OS supporting shared-object library paradigms. This is part of the reason why 95% of commercial Applications are running in an emulated/wrapper on the nix platforms. The year of the Linux Desktop is still a ways off, and the foundational library structures are under constant upgrade or permutation. Snap/Flatpak/AppImage and Docker/RancherVM were all designed to try and mitigate the compatibility chaos of perpetual nix Beta release cultures. It has some advantages, but also a lot of disadvantages similar to the Butterfly Effect bugs when something with the same name slightly changes behavior. =3
- cindyllm 1mo ago
  [dead]
- pocksuppet 1mo ago
  The GPL excludes system libraries from contamination issues.
  - Joel_Mckay 1mo ago
    LGPL does not allow static linking without disclosure. It is why the wxWidgets has a license that allows creating monolithic commercial blob dependent binaries for Windows, Linux Gtk/X11, and MacOS. https://wxwidgets.org/about/licence/ https://wxwidgets.org/about/licence/ People should not static link GPL/LGPL code to closed source blobs, and expect copyright/copyleft trolls to leave their project violating licenses. =3
    - pocksuppet 1mo ago
      Why would you want to not disclose that you used an LGPL library?
      - Joel_Mckay 1mo ago
        LGPL requires whatever you static link it with is GPL/OSS. This is sometimes impossible with mystery binary blobs from manufacturers. =3