• lntl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    The idea is that for code to truly be free, you should be able to make it proprietary. If you can’t do that, then it isn’t really free. That’s how I understand the idea anyway

    • God@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      But that’s not being anti, just accepting the possibility of it. Like i consider myself a libertarian and if you wanna make it close source, ok, I may dislike it but I won’t regulate against it. But being anti would imply I would go out of my way to censor your ability to do close source.

      • lntl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s a GPL license thing. If you make a derivative work of GPL code, you’re NOT free to do what you want with it. This is where the 'anti come from.

        • God@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Ah. Well I’m pro theft so just use it and close it if you want and pray for the best! Hide the evidence to not get sued.

          • lntl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            This happens from time to time. The offending party either removes the GPL code or they GPL the work. That’s life ;)

              • lntl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                It costs money to rewrite entire libraries

                • God@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  You don’t need to rewrite it though. Just keep it closed source and import / copy paste whatever you want into your repo.

                  • lntl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    It’s may be possible to tell if there is GPL code included whether or not the source is reveal. A simple example is that some plain-text strings are visible in compiled binaries. In this way, poking around with a hexeditor may reveal strings which indicate part of the code is GPL.

        • sydneybrokeit@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          There are two parts to this. On one side, you have the “please follow the GPL if you’re using GPL code” – which is really just asking someone to honor a contract, more or less.

          Then you have people like RMS, who believe that there should not be such a thing as proprietary software. They don’t care if you aren’t using the GPL – no software should be proprietary, period.

          • lntl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            I admire that RMS has a vision for the world and fights for it. World needs more people like this.

    • JerkyIsSuperior@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I have yet to see an anti-GPL statement that doesn’t boil down to “I should be able to take other people’s work and claim it as my own”.