Unpopular opinion: if you choose an #OpenSource license with a thought in your mind in the form of "to prevent X from doing Y", you might be thinking about open source the wrong way.
Open source is always permissive.
7
21
126
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
No, it's an exception that lets you decide whether to grant freedoms to *direct* users or to *all* users.
This is a point where the renaming of free software to open source software dalla short. Free software is about users not about recipients of code.
2
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Ensuring that everybody gets to have exactly the same freedoms is the opposite of preventing X from doing Y. Sure it's possible to use it as a *means* of preventing X from doing Y, but it is a constructive way to introduce such limitations because it builds a level playing field.
2
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
No, because *everybody* benefits from them. But FWIW I've been writing GPL software for over 20 years and I don't even work for Amazon or any other CSP so perhaps you're thinking of someone else.
GPL has license incompatibilities even with popular licenses also considered Free Software licenses. It isn't a theoretical issue. As one example, you can't use Linux kernel code in glibc or vice versa. It definitely restricts more than just distributing proprietary code with it.
Yes, on a licence-by-license basis the obligations that the community has generally accepted are sometimes incompatible with the goals for a particular package (like glibc), or impossible to satisfy when combined together (like GPLv2-only + Apache 2.0)
https://apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html…
These incompatibilities wouldn't exist if GPL didn't have non-free usage restrictions. By simply forbidding restrictions it doesn't enforce, it's a non-free license itself even if you make an exception for enforcing that the software remains under your definition of freedom.