@jwildeboer nice to know 😂
@jwildeboer I was a little confused by his comment, because I didn't think mithro (Tim Ansel) worked for google. So I tracked down the issue in question. I found his later explanation even more disturbing and disappointing. Don't license AGPL because we *might* want to try to get funding from Google in the future. Wow...
@cstanhope I had the link to the issue in my previous tweet. https://social.wildeboer.net/@jwildeboer/105193363110691512
@jwildeboer Sorry I missed that! We had the same reaction. smh
(I had assumed you deliberately didn't link to it, so I did the same.)
@jwildeboer EUPL closes the network use loophole in a similar manner, EUPL is not viral, though. It's sort of "LAGPL".
As I understand free/libre implies forever-open but not the other way.
So there could be a forever-open license which for instance forbids the use of the code. It would be open but not free.
Does go along with your argument?
@paoloredaelli In any sense that copyleft licenses are viral, so are proprietary ones, and often more.
@feld Yes, I think so, too. If somebody uses a GPL-licenced source file in a released program then I understand that the whole of that program has to be GPL. If that's right then GPL can reasonably be described as viral in a way that BSD, MIT or even LGPL wouldn't.
Personally, I'd never use GPL. The odds and ends I have released have generally been MIT/public domain. I could be persuaded to use LGPL, though.
There are free software licenses that let you turn that software into non-free software. However, many copyleft licenses are still free software licenses.
@edavies Let me just put it this way. Working at Red Hat since 15 years and being in political lobbying for Software Freedom has made me very aware of the power of words. The endless discussions with legal departments that insist on "viral" and how GPL is somehow evil has hardened me. Sorry for that :) @wizzwizz4 @feld @rysiek @Steinar
See, it really doesn't matter. There is a philosophical, fundamental difference between BSD style and GPL style sharing/licensing. It cannot be overcome. If someone strongly prefers one side, so be it. We can happily coexist without a holy war on who is right IMHO. I can.
Let's just accept that BSD style defines freedom as "Use as you want, nothing more" and GPL style defines freedom as "Use as you want IN THE SAME WAY we gave it to you". GPL style does NOT see that as restriction, they see it as necessary to protect the freedom they care about. That's the main difference it all boils down to. Accept and understand that difference. They are IMHO both valid positions to take.
And what many people also forget (or ignore) is that the GPL only kicks in fully when the modified code gets *distributed*.
As long as you keep the code and your changes to yourself and don't distribute them, you don't have to put everything under GPL or share your modifications.
Mastodon instance for people with Wildeboer as their last name