19 ms·
I don't, actually, because I don't really care. The GPL has held back open source and left the door wide open for Apple and Microsoft to push a locked-down clo
by teacup50 11y ago
I don't, actually, because I don't really care.
The GPL has held back open source and left the door wide open for Apple and Microsoft to push a locked-down cloud future in which general purpose computing has been or is in the process of being destroyed for 99% of the population.
It's a stupid license that grew out of naive politics, and has done nothing more than made the world suck more; quibbles over pointless GPL licensing minutia are a waste of resources and fail to inspire in me a dramatic response.
- FigBug 11y agoI'd be interested in how the GPL has held back open source and what license would be better. Haven't the licenses like BSD/MIT just made it easier to take open source code and lock it down?
- yarrel 11y agoApple's cloud is based on BSD-licensed software. So no.
- bcg1 11y agoI wonder if attitudes such as yours actually hold "open source" back. In my mind it can't be good to gin up infighting for no good reason, especially on a forum thread like this one that is not at all related to the topic of permissive vs. copyleft licensing. I'm not sure what your age is... but I suspect you might not remember the world of personal computing before the GPL and free software were everywhere. If you do remember those times... it is very difficult for me to put myself in your shoes and understand how you come to the conclusion that the GPL has made the world suck more.
- tspiteri 11y agoI suspect that if the Linux kernel was published under a BSD-style license, Canonical would provide binaries without source, and their patches would be proprietary. My suspicions are based on the fact that Canonical are trying to make it difficult to redistribute their work, so much so that they were violating the GPL before introducing the trump clause mentioned in the article.