GPL doesn't restrict usage, just distribution. You can do whatever you want with GPL software including incorporating it into a new program. You just can't share it with someone else unless you give them the same rights to the whole program.
Everything else is fud.
Conversation
You're playing on the words here - yes, the GPL is applicable at distribution time, but having to distribute essential components of your software separately comes with several restrictions on how you can use it, the first one being that you can't link it statically.
1
As a user I don't distribute software. As a developer I do.
Claiming that a developer distributing software is part of the use of software is playing tricks with words. If you don't understand the distinction then I'm not sure how else to explain like... computers... to you.
2
Hahaha, thanks for the condescending explanation! You see, the primary consumers of *source code* are... developers! Maybe it wasn't the case originally, but in today's world, the "users" you are talking about use prebuilt software, they almost never build it from source.
2
But if you must insist on that specific definition of "users" that aren't developers - I reject it entirely. Why? Because an open source license should protect the rights of the developers first. You may disagree, but I value my own rights as a developer more than as a user
1
THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING. If you care more about the 30M developers in the world than the 8B users you should choose software that isn't under a Copyleft. Please! Everyone (especially you) will be very happy.
1
That's not the case at all. I'm not really interested in further engaging with someone being so thoroughly dishonest and manipulative. You're demonstrating what I said earlier when I said that the toxic Free Software cult is the biggest downside to the GPL.
1
Why do you register trademarks if you think government enforcement of IP is wrong and just exists to harm the vulnerable?
1
Primarily to stop malicious people who previously filed fraudulent copyright claims over our work from doing the same with trademarks.
1
1
1
I've wondered if this project rename was due to a name collision...
2
It was an unfortunate name collision but it was a bigger problem for them than for us and we didn't have any conflict with them about it.
GrapheneOS brand was previously used by one of the companies building on our project. They gave us the name and branding they'd been using.
grapheneos.com was registered in January 2014 by someone that's now a GrapheneOS user.
grapheneos.ca and grapheneos.net were registered maliciously to trick our users and we were concerned they'd escalate and file for the trademark so we filed first.
1
We got ownership of grapheneos.ca and grapheneos.net without the help of the ridiculous Canadian legal system or domain registrars, etc. Bought several other variants of the domains too. There are still people buying more to squat on them for various reasons.
1
1
Show replies