• hobata@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I have a completely different view of what free means. xGPL are restrictive and sticky.

      • hobata@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        GPL licenses are straight-up cancer, they force every derivative or linked project to adopt their viral copyleft rules, nuking proprietary reuse or easy mixing with other codebases, while a weird GPL cult preaches it as the one true path to “openness” and “freedom”. As someone who codes purely for fun, I like the dead-simple clarity of MIT and BSD: just keep the notice and license text, then do whatever the hell you want. No GPL bullshit or compliance headaches for me, permissive licenses like these keep my sanity intact.

        • cheesemoo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s… The point of the GPL licenses, to preserve copyleft. I also prefer the simplicity of the MIT license for my own works, but I respect the copyleft ideals.

        • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          GPL is especially popular with people who don’t want their labor of love to become a source of free labor for corporations who will tweak it, close the source, directly profit off it, and never donate or contribute patches. For them, it’s an antiparasitic license.