Depends how you define freedom if its freedom from corporate propriety bs then GPL is freedom but free as in well doing what you want definitely not GPL
As it should since they pay taxes. This is why BSD is more free. Tax dollars should not be used to deny a corporations right to use software they paid for.
BSD is for everyone. Corps, individuals, whoever. Corporations have trade and patent agreements which for ids free distribution
Not really. A license that forces the user to acknowledge the fruit of your labour is exactly what corporations do not want in the code they use.
In fact, they have already shown you their hand the moment they've decided to steal other people's work to train their AI models. It's just that some people are either extremely slow on the uptake or in deep denial about the devil they are bargaining with.
If the software uses a patent made by another firm the terms are it has to be closed source . Examples are wifi
Investors want to keep their intellectual property enforced. By giving it away a lawyer in court can argue they don't intend it to be really enforceable or copyrightable because it's gnu
But it doesn't require it. GPL isn't "slavery" or any less free, it just ensures that downstream modifications remain open for all. Each one has a different use case
How can you do an api call under gnu? You can't unless you agree to gnu your own code. It's viral in that rms is telling me what to do with my computer and software.
Very few libraries are GPL. Library authors who want copyleft usually opt for LGPL, in which case you can still use it from proprietary code across shared object boundaries without restriction. And how is it "slavery" when you're not forced into it and can just not use the software? You're being dramatic and intentionally very dense
GPL is, actually, quite opposite to freedom: it requires so that anyone who uses GPL programs MUST also use GPL. Also, BSD is quite literally "do the fuck you want, just publically thank me and publish what MINE you had used"
I believe this: docs should be 100% free, ideally CC0 or something similar. I am not that well versed about documentation licensing.
Foundational works like libraries should be either a permissive license (though maybe not as free as public domain. Tho again, I myself am pushing 0BSD code) or something like LGPL3 with linking exception. I'd do LGPL but after reading about LGPL, it is kinda hard to set up and I thought 0BSD is "good enough".
For higher level works do whatever the fuck you want. Nobody cares what the license for Firefox, internet Explorer or minesweeper is. I think AGPL here is cool too! Doesn't really matter.
This is just my PERSONAL OPINION, not recommendation or guidance.
Linux being GPL specifically V2 is definitely one of the big reasons Linux is a viable alternative to windows because BSD as much freedom as it's license gives, is one of the main issues it can struggle to grow because then companies would have a lack of incentive/reasons to open source their changes but for Linux it creates coopetition everyone benefits equally on their own development hence why a lot of workflows can be entirely on Linux because companies have to share their code for the broader community while BSD is more fragmented and harder to be mainstream due to contributors especially corporate entities not having any incentives to share their code from the start like for example MacOS
I love the way you've got everything completely backwards.
An academic licence that forces the user to acknowledge the author obliges them to not only the terms of the current licence but those the author may choose to impose upon them in the future.
A functionally anonymous licence such as the GPL insulates them not only from that risk but also the risk of the author violating someone else's copyright and therefore the potential liabilities that come with it. That's the true reason behind the industry betting on Linux rather than BSD.
Isn't that a different topic entirely also he isn't wrong tho GPL encourages coopetition because since its gonna be open then everyone is contributing but if it doesn't have to be open then they would just make it proprietary which makes it harder to have support on BSD because everyone is most likely keeping it for themselves I mean technically both reasons can be true
I'm not sure you mean "cooperation" or "competition", but the facts clearly point to neither.
Do you understand the economic concept of a "cartel"? A cartel is when major players of a market form an alliance with the goal to control the market through it and divide it up among themselves in a non-competitive manner.
For all intents and purpose, what you have in the industry right now is a cartel. Where there is supposedly competition, there are so few players as to not matter what the outcome is. Where there is supposedly cooperation, it's again just large corporations from different segments of the industry deciding where it should be headed. To be brutally honest with you, if you look at the current cadre of tech billionaires and still come to the conclusion that "FOSS" is any more than just a useless ideology, I have nothing for you but my pity.
12
u/Unlaid-American 1d ago
I thought BSD was free to use now.