llllllllllllll

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by llllllllllllll 11y ago

   I think this quote from the article is what is all qbout. "In Shane's talk last night, he argued against copyleft because software licenses should have "no strings attached". But the very strategy that is advocated above
2. 2.▲
   by llllllllllllll 11y ago

   > So for the average user - GPL has encouraged loss of user freedom This is ridiculous i encourage you to remember the state of affaires before gpl. User freedom wasn't even on the map. It changed everything and overall the users ga
3. 3.▲
   by llllllllllllll 11y ago

   As far as i know Apache License, Version 2.0 is considered a free software license. To quote from gnu.org "This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL." source: http://www.gnu.org/lice
4. 4.▲
   by llllllllllllll 11y ago

   Exactly linux distributions have had app stores for ages which have a lot of freedom. And then there are things like the arch user repository which is even less controlled and also great.
5. 5.▲
   by llllllllllllll 11y ago

   You should think what malware is. Maybe apple software is malware as well. Anyways if you could review the source code of the "malware" you (or people who can read it)could know what it does in advance and avoid it. And code could