Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
On Sat, 6 May 2023 10:56:23 +0200 Страхиња Радић wrote: > [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > [2]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html > [3]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html > [4]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html Thank you for your very diverse and neutral selection of sources. I think this article[0] gives a good insight into the leading questions of the debate. [0]:https://unixsheikh.com/articles/the-problems-with-the-gpl.html
Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 09:05:39AM +0100, Ray Garner wrote: > Hi > > I've been using suckless tools such as dwm and st for a while now and > think theyre great, my question is to do with software licenses. > > I'm curious about licensing and was wondering why suckless tools are > released under MIT rather than an alternative like GPL. Is it just to make > it compatible with more other software? Since I'm a hobbyist programmer and not a hobbyist lawyer, I just go by word count. If nothing else, it's a 100% objective standard. My current best choice is 0-clause BSD, which beats MIT by about 60 words. > Also, the GPL is included on the on the cat-v.org list of harmful software but > without explanation. Does anyone here know if its considered harmful for > compatability reasons or something else? > > Anyway, thanks for the programs. > > Cheers > Ray > -- Storkman
Re: [dev] [license] gpl issues
On 23/05/05 08:07AM, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > I try to take a balanced stance in the GPL vs. MIT discussion, given it > usually derails into tribalist diatribes on both sides. Essays have been written and are available online explaining everything about GPL and related licenses, so there's no need for anyone to reiterate what is already there (examples: [1], [2], [3], [4] and so on). Anyone interested can read them and form their own opinion. Personally, I believe that GNU GPLv3+ is superior and use it for programs I write from scratch. But that is pointless to bring up here, because the reality is that the programmers who made suckless software mostly picked Expat License (and are calling it "the MIT License"). It is irrelevant for non-GPL programs I fork or contribute to, because once the license is picked, software it applies to can't be relicensed. Here we come to my main point: that this is a troll topic, promoting division and pushing the main suckless principles to the background. Consequently, I already wrote too much here. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html [2]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html [3]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html [4]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html signature.asc Description: PGP signature
