this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
624 points (95.3% liked)
linuxmemes
23532 readers
168 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack users for any reason. This includes using blanket terms, like "every user of thing".
- Don't get baited into back-and-forth insults. We are not animals.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, <loves/tolerates/hates> systemd, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
5. π¬π§ Language/ΡΠ·ΡΠΊ/Sprache
- This is primarily an English-speaking community. π¬π§π¦πΊπΊπΈ
- Comments written in other languages are allowed.
- The substance of a post should be comprehensible for people who only speak English.
- Titles and post bodies written in other languages will be allowed, but only as long as the above rule is observed.
6. (NEW!) Regarding public figures
We all have our opinions, and certain public figures can be divisive. Keep in mind that this is a community for memes and light-hearted fun, not for airing grievances or leveling accusations. - Keep discussions polite and free of disparagement.
- We are never in possession of all of the facts. Defamatory comments will not be tolerated.
- Discussions that get too heated will be locked and offending comments removed. Β
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't remove France.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The only "freedom" the GPL infringes on is the ability to take the freedom the code originally had away from an end-user.
That's also false. The GPL doesn't only restrict non-free licences, it restricts any licence change on the derivative work. If I fork a GPL project and want to redistribute my changes with a free licence such as MIT, the GPL will prevent it to protect itself. It's an authoritarian licence that doesn't respect your freedom.
I fail to see how the share-alike nature of the GPL is "authoritarian" and "doesn't respect your freedom".
It is built to guarantee the freedom of the user. It's imperfect, as it has to work within the constraints of the copyright system, but it's a hell of a lot better than licenses like MIT for propagating freedom to end users.
Here's a real world example:
If I want to root my android device with KernelSU or build a custom ROM, I need to recompile the heavily customised kernel built by the vendor for my specific device. Because Linux (the kernel of android) is under the GPL, the manufacturer is compelled to give the user the same freedoms that were given to them, which means I can download the source code and do this.
If Android were based on, say, the FreeBSD kernel instead, this would be impossible. There would be very few, if any, android custom ROMs, because the vendor could, and would, withhold the modifications they made to the kernel.
You're again assuming that the GPL only restricts non-free licences. This is not the case. If I add a feature to a piece of GPL software, I can't use BSD on my new code even though the new code isn't derivative work. Hell, if I write a completely independent piece of software that links to GPL software, my new software has to be GPL even though not a single line of GPL code was used. All of this also applies to free licences like BSD. The GPL doesn't protect freedom, it protects itself.
You're assuming that the GPL protecting freedom and protecting itself are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Again, the GPL is written to ensure the code remains free forever.
Also, I've already pointed out the flawed nature of licenses like MIT and BSD, and if the GPL could be relicensed to them, it would provide a very easy way for proprietary developers to strip the freedom from the GPLed code when passing a derivative on to their users.
It is unfortunate that it cannot be relicensed to other copyleft licenses, as that would not pose such a problem, but without an explicit list of licenses it can be relicensed to I'm not sure that's even legally possible under copyright.
It is mutually exclusive. You cannot "protect freedom" and impose restrictions on freedom. Also, no, you just explained how the licences worked and didn't provide a single argument as to why having the freedom to licence your work however you want is a bad thing. The GPL doesn't ensure that the software stays free, it ensures that it keeps control of the software and all future additions to it even if they're completely unrelated.
Also, copyleft is just newspeak for copyright.
You're being extremely disingenuous, and you know it.
It protects ALL freedom EXCEPT the freedom to take away freedom from the original code. If you are desperate to allow this, write your code from scratch instead of using GPLed code, nobody is stopping you.
The GPL absolutely does not prevent you from licensing your work however you like. You can write BSD code and put it in a GPL program no problem. The only condition is that if you use GPL code you must not take the freedom away from it. If you don't like that, replace the GPL code and suddenly the project is completely BSD or whatever have you.
And I did give you an example of why pushover licenses aren't great. Because it would prevent custom ROMs on android from being possible.
This is a ridiculous assertion.
A) The GPL is a license. You say "it keeps control" as if it's some person or organisation controlling the code. It isn't. I could say the same about the BSD license, it "keeps control" by forcing the user of the code to leave all copyright notices intact, even if it's combined into code of a different license. How horrible. Why can't the code be under my terms where I get to get rid of attribution?
B) If you make an addition to GPLed code, it absolutely is "related".
C) As I said earlier, the GPL does not stop you licensing your code however you like. See above.
No, it's a play on words because it uses the copyright system for the opposite of which it was originally intended. It was intended to lock down "intellectual property" to it's owner, but the GPL uses the functionality of copyright law to do the opposite and force that users of the code always maintain the freedom to modify, share, and redistribute copies.
Are you a proprietary software developer who relies on permissively-licensed code for your work, by any chance?