Bug: Not GPL. :-) · Issue #834 · uutils/coreutils
github.com
Hi, I love this project, but infrastructural software really should be under the GPL. It's very important that distributed software can be fixed by the end user, which the MIT licenses & fr...

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/119645

The amount of libertarian ideology present in FOSS is shocking

Yeah, I can’t believe the shit liberals say (hehe) sometimes…

  • CommunistWolf@lemmygrad.ml
    61·
    2 years ago

    Thanks. I’ve been throwing these ideas at various walls for a few years now, trying to get something that sticks, and that isn’t immediately rejected out-of-hand by FOSS advocates 😅

    Yeah, you’re pretty much spot on. These big fish are using the tools we build “for anyone” to construct a prison for us, right in plain sight, and we just… keep building the tools? How does that make sense?

    • ☭ 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗘𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 ☭@lemmygrad.ml
      4·
      2 years ago

      Yeah, I’ve never seen this type of license before (aside from CC BY-NC, which doesn’t have an exception for co-ops and doesn’t seem to be widely used for code), but it makes sense. I think a lot of people (like me) find licenses rather complex and tend to flock to the most popular ones, and it’s not as easy to convince someone to use a license that’s drastically different to what they’re used to (as opposed to, for example, MIT vs. BSD 2/3-clause, or GPL vs. MPL).