On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
You haven't really said anything relevant to the post.

The issue is with how the GPL defines proper use of pre-existing works. The ultimately point is that they arbitrarily decide how a work uses another based on "fork and exec" and "library". My point is that those are ultimately artificial because whether we call a function/app through a library or through a command line, they are effectively the same(the difference being performance/convenience, which is the whole point of loading a library vs using the command line).

They admit this in the gpl FAQ(if you read it you will see) but the fact that they still create arbitrary division suggests the license is somewhat meaningless/incompetent.

Licenses should be more specific in their terminology and their behaviors and effects rather than using arbitrary divisions.

Also, while not proof, the fact that the majority of donations to the foundation go to the lawyers(if true) also suggest that it is somewhat of a scam(at the very least, something is fishy).

This is not the proper place to blog about software license preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations against an organization you don't like. There are other sites for that.

Reply via email to