3 ms·
The license description at choosealicense.com actually misrepresents the GPL. The GPL doesn't actually require that the source of modified versions be released
by quadrangle 12y ago
The license description at choosealicense.com actually misrepresents the GPL. The GPL doesn't actually require that the source of modified versions be released to the original author. It requires that the source be released to the users who get the software. It is a downstream license designed for the freedom of the users and only incidentally works incompletely as a license to promote sharing the code back.
Everything about the design of the GPL including the very wording of the license is explicitly about blocking software from becoming proprietary. The choosealicense.com description is intentionally designed to avoid giving any acknowledgement of the GPL's actual design and intention because they don't want people to value the things the GPL is about.
- zerocrates 12y ago> The license description at choosealicense.com actually misrepresents the GPL. The GPL doesn't actually require that the source of modified versions be released to the original author. Where are you seeing a description that says sources must go to the author? I only see > requires anyone who distributes your code or a derivative work to make the source available under the same terms and > When distributing derived works, the source code of the work must be made available under the same license. Those both seem accurate, if maybe a little less clear than they might be.