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
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
Replying to
Mk, but we don't live in free societies. Capitalism doesn't support freedom. & society is immeasurably inhibited by relying on systems & infrastructures that are complete mysteries. They allow for deniable obstruction, abuses of power & invasions of privacy--all are unacceptable.
1
Replying to
Open source and free software are fully compatible and supportive of capitalism. If anything, they're pro-corporate and anti-worker. They make it harder for developers to earn a living wage, not easier. They're great for large corporations. It hardly prevents any actual abuses.
2
GPL forbids placing restrictions on commercial usage or usage of the software that you consider unethical.
If you added a clause forbidding your software being used to commit genocide, it would not be GPL compatible anymore.
Silly to pretend it has anything to do with ethics.
1
Open source software has been a major part of helping to build the surveillance state and is heavily used by major corporations.
Authoritarian governments are more than happy to track down and kill dissidents with surveillance and weapons largely built with open source software.
2
Software is a tool, like a gun. It isn't inherently good or evil. You could try to use copyright law to restrict using the software for what you consider evil. GPL doesn't permit you to do that. I personally don't think it makes sense just as I don't think the GPL makes sense.
1
Replying to
There's just no reason for closed-source software to exist unless you are writing code for yourself, which isn't prohibited by copyleft licenses. If you are going to offer code for others to use, they deserve to know how it works.
1
1
Replying to
You're arguing against a position that I have not taken and against statements that I have not made.