this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
671 points (100.0% liked)

linuxmemes

23841 readers
1986 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack users for any reason. This includes using blanket terms, like "every user of thing".
  • Don't get baited into back-and-forth insults. We are not animals.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
    • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
    • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, <loves/tolerates/hates> systemd, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
    • 5. πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ Language/язык/Sprache
  • This is primarily an English-speaking community. πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§πŸ‡¦πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ
  • Comments written in other languages are allowed.
  • The substance of a post should be comprehensible for people who only speak English.
  • Titles and post bodies written in other languages will be allowed, but only as long as the above rule is observed.
    • 6. (NEW!) Regarding public figuresWe all have our opinions, and certain public figures can be divisive. Keep in mind that this is a community for memes and light-hearted fun, not for airing grievances or leveling accusations.
  • Keep discussions polite and free of disparagement.
  • We are never in possession of all of the facts. Defamatory comments will not be tolerated.
  • Discussions that get too heated will be locked and offending comments removed.
    •  

    Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't remove France.

    founded 2 years ago
    MODERATORS
    poopsmith@lemmy.world
    zephyr@lemmy.world
    rtxn@lemmy.world
    671
    the perfect browser (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
    submitted 1 week ago by cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
    195 comments fedilink hide all child comments
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    You're being extremely disingenuous, and you know it.

    It is mutually exclusive. You cannot "protect freedom" and impose restrictions on freedom.

    It protects ALL freedom EXCEPT the freedom to take away freedom from the original code. If you are desperate to allow this, write your code from scratch instead of using GPLed code, nobody is stopping you.

    Also, no, you just explained how the licences worked and didn't provide a single argument as to why having the freedom to licence your work however you want is a bad thing.

    The GPL absolutely does not prevent you from licensing your work however you like. You can write BSD code and put it in a GPL program no problem. The only condition is that if you use GPL code you must not take the freedom away from it. If you don't like that, replace the GPL code and suddenly the project is completely BSD or whatever have you.

    And I did give you an example of why pushover licenses aren't great. Because it would prevent custom ROMs on android from being possible.

    The GPL doesn't ensure that the software stays free, it ensures that it keeps control of the software and all future additions to it even if they're completely unrelated.

    This is a ridiculous assertion.

    A) The GPL is a license. You say "it keeps control" as if it's some person or organisation controlling the code. It isn't. I could say the same about the BSD license, it "keeps control" by forcing the user of the code to leave all copyright notices intact, even if it's combined into code of a different license. How horrible. Why can't the code be under my terms where I get to get rid of attribution?

    B) If you make an addition to GPLed code, it absolutely is "related".

    C) As I said earlier, the GPL does not stop you licensing your code however you like. See above.

    Also, copyleft is just newspeak for copyright.

    No, it's a play on words because it uses the copyright system for the opposite of which it was originally intended. It was intended to lock down "intellectual property" to it's owner, but the GPL uses the functionality of copyright law to do the opposite and force that users of the code always maintain the freedom to modify, share, and redistribute copies.

    Are you a proprietary software developer who relies on permissively-licensed code for your work, by any chance?

    [–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago (7 children)

    The only reason you perceive my comment as disingenuous is because you're on the authoritarian side of the political spectrum. Again: me writing new code on existing software and wanting to license it as MIT takes away nobody's freedom, it just doesn't comply with your dictator's fantasy.

    The rest of your comment is really just you trying to cope with the insanity of the licence you choose to defend. There's legal precedent saying adding to code doesn't count as using the code but the FSF will still sue you if you license your work how you see fit. Authoritarianism at its best.

    [–] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

    Lol I already stated how you absolutely can write MIT code in a GPL project (this also makes your point about legal precedent moot, since the license of the GPL code technically does not dictate the license of other code, just the software using the GPL code). Did you miss that or choose to ignore it? I also never said there's anything wrong with permissively-licensed code.

    The rest is clearly ad hominem. If I were a fan of authoritarianism, I'd write proprietary software.

    [–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

    What you stated was a lie. I don't know what to tell you 🀷🏻

    [–] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

    You're telling me you can't license a file under MIT/BSD in a GPL project? And that I'm a liar for saying you can?

    Explain this, then: https://github.com/KDE/krita/blob/d83168fc6f0b4f671e236b34a7ada66dd29aeb5e/3rdparty_vendor/raqm/src/raqm-0.10.1/src/raqm.c

    That's an MIT licensed file in a GPL project, bearing it's original MIT license. If you wanted to use that file in your project you would be abiding by the terms of the MIT license, not the GPL (unless you wanted to).

    So, who's the liar?

    load more comments (4 replies)
    load more comments (4 replies)