GPLv2 forbids the additional non-free restrictions added in GPLv3 so they can't be mixed together.
It isn't permitted to use Linux kernel code in GNU projects or vice versa.
GPL is why Linux users don't have a nice mainline ZFS implementation.
This hardly qualifies as freedom.
Conversation
Replying to
GPL is a non-free software license. It's avoided by projects with strict requirements for free software licenses like OpenBSD.
Free Software means the freedom to use it for any purpose, including building a device with an immutable root of trust or mixing it with other software.
1
6
The restrictions regularly get in my way as a developer and a user of software.
I would use ZFS on my workstation if the Linux kernel used a free software license rather than GPLv2. It's too problematic to use an out-of-tree filesystem.
GPLv3 gets in the way far more often.
3
6
If there's a license incompatibility, then at least one of the licenses doesn't support the freedom to use the software for any purpose. A true Free Software license doesn't have license incompatibilities.
The people who regularly contact me pushing GPL helped me realize this.
1
7
Replying to
While I don't agree with your statement wrt to the licenses, the reason Linux users don't have a mainline ZFS implementation was Sun and is now Oracle. They explicitly want ZFS to be incompatible with Linux.
That is neither the fault of the kernel community nor the GPL.
1
1
Replying to
It is the GPL at fault. GPL is similarly incompatible with MPL 1.0 in the same way for the same reason. It's incompatible with other licenses for similar reasons.
Even if the talking point that Sun chose the license for that reason was true (doubtful), it's still GPL's fault.
1
Show replies
Replying to
Software doesn't exist in a world without power differentials though. How much more often are you & society hindered by closed-source software?
Being opensource isn't too much to ask. It's a choice to blame copyleft for enforcing authors' boundaries around unaccountable secrecy.
1
Replying to
In a free society, developers have the choice not to publish source code and others are free to reverse engineer, modify and use it for any purpose.
Software is a tool. It's not inherently good or bad. GPL doesn't enforce any kind of ethical development or usage of software.
1
Show replies