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
Replying to
Yeah, but capitalism isn't supportive of freedom, that's the point.
You're blaming copyleft for systems that are compatible with closed-source software. That's your choice. But closed-source inhibits society, & enables tech to function surreptitiously with no accountability.
1
Replying to
You're completely misrepresenting my statements and claiming that I'm said things which I haven't said.
Personally, I have a problem with an authoritarian state enforcing a mandatory copyright system rather than with developers choosing not to release their source code.
1
Replying to
You don't have to release your source code. Unless your code is going to be used by other people, in which case they deserve to know how it works.
Disallowing the practice of serving people software that operates secretly is a standard which is honorable.
1
Replying to
That is not the function of the GPL. It doesn't simply require you to make the source code available. If that's what it did, then nothing in the original thread would be a problem as there would be no license incompatibilities and it would not prevent an immutable root of trust.
Are you misinterpreting my thread because you're wrongly thinking that ZFS is closed source software? It's open source software licensed under the CDDL, which is a far more permissive license than GPL.
GPLv2 (Linux) forbids it for the same reason it forbids GPLv3, AGPL, etc.
1
Replying to
Naw, you lauded OpenBSD as a free-software license, in contrast. It doesn't require source-code to be distributed at all. It seems dishonest to assert opensource is a given virtue of true free-software (like OpenBSD?) when it doesn't enforce derivatives are also opensource.
1
Show replies