Conversation

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Replying to

and

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.

Replying to

and

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.

Replying to

and

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) apache.org/licenses/GPL-c

Replying to

and

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.

Replying to

and

For me, it has been (for decades) a matter of semantics. Often copyleft licenses are called "restrictive". Yes, the obligations of copyleft licenses /could/ be viewed as restrictive on the recipient's "free usage" of the software.

Replying to

and

Another way of saying restrictive is non-free. I don't think copyright is legitimate in the first place. I see no problem with someone not releasing their source code. The problem is a law disallowing you from reverse engineering and copying it. That's what restricts freedom.

Replying to

GPL may have been intended to subvert copyright law. In practice, look at how often GPL is used with copyright assignment, dual licensing, etc. as part of upholding a business model through copyright law. Often used because it's the most restrictive thing that FSF says is free.

Replying to

and

So the problem is not the GPL but CLAs. Which is not inconsistent with what Matt said: if you use a CLA to prevent X from doing Y you are not understanding open source.

Replying to

and

I consider the license incompatibilities to be a serious problem. I fully understand why they forbid having an immutable root of trust due to their goals, but that's also a problem from my perspective. I have a problem with copyright assignment too, but not only with the GPL.

Replying to

I'm totally fine with cla.developers.google.com/about/google-i. Their CLA is essentially just an explicit Apache 2 license without the requirement to include it with the software. I wouldn't be fine with it if they used GPL rather than Apache 2, because I expect the same terms from them.

7:43 PM · Apr 21, 2021Twitter Web App

Replying to

I simply don't believe in copyright and consider any restrictive licenses to be non-free. It doesn't matter if the goal is preserving freedoms. My personal experiences with copyright have made me believe quite strongly that the entire thing is a mistake primarily used abusively.

Replying to

It depends on using the legal system against people. If you don't have willpower or resources to do that, it doesn't do any good. It can and does get violated. It only restricts people who respect the rules. If pirating a movie isn't unethical, then neither is violating the GPL.

Show replies

Replying to

and

We actually agree on this. CLA to a copyleft project is a no-no, unless it's like the FSF copyright assignment which (in short) promises that the source code to all derivatives will be available.