Greetings. On Mon, 12 May 2014 22:02:57 +0200 "Anthony J. Bentley" <anth...@cathet.us> wrote: > Christoph Lohmann writes: > > On Mon, 12 May 2014 18:18:37 +0200 FRIGN <d...@frign.de> wrote: > > > Well, let's take a look at the GPL first: It's a strict free software > > > license, which means that it doesn't permit incorporating or even > > > linking a GPL-software without publishing the software itself under a > > > free software license and/or ship the software with the source-code > > > used. > > > We at suckless agreed that there should be the freedom for everyone to > > > use the software in proprietary software as well. > > > That's why the GPL is often considered harmful, as it inhibits the free > > > flow of knowledge and often leads to complete rewrites of software, > > > just because the authors are pissed off by it. > > Not just people who dislike it. Even GPL lovers have to rewrite their > software due to the GPL. > > Example: LibreCAD, a fork of QCad, which had been relicensed by the > authoring company under the GPLv2. LibreCAD wanted to support AutoCAD's > DWG file format. Unluckily for them, LibreDWG (a FSF project) is licensed > GPLv3+, and the FSF refused to relicense. The GPL made the code so free > they couldn't use it.
At least this allows a viral spreading of the license. It could be the major factor for its survival strategy. > > And, as OpenSSL shows, corporate assholes never really give back. > > With the GPL you at least get their crown jewels, if they piss you off. > > Yeah, ask Landley how much useful code Busybox got out of all those lawsuits. > Corporations are terrible at writing code. We don't want their garbage. It’s not about the corporate garbage code, but to have the hardware specs in the code and a way to build a new firmware for that hardware. Yes, many releases of the Open Source code for various hardware requires much work to be usable. Sincerely, Christoph Lohmann
