You’re assuming that the GPL protecting freedom and protecting itself are mutually exclusive. They aren’t. Again, the GPL is written to ensure the code remains free forever.
Also, I’ve already pointed out the flawed nature of licenses like MIT and BSD, and if the GPL could be relicensed to them, it would provide a very easy way for proprietary developers to strip the freedom from the GPLed code when passing a derivative on to their users.
It is unfortunate that it cannot be relicensed to other copyleft licenses, as that would not pose such a problem, but without an explicit list of licenses it can be relicensed to I’m not sure that’s even legally possible under copyright.
It is mutually exclusive. You cannot “protect freedom” and impose restrictions on freedom. 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 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.
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?
You’re assuming that the GPL protecting freedom and protecting itself are mutually exclusive. They aren’t. Again, the GPL is written to ensure the code remains free forever.
Also, I’ve already pointed out the flawed nature of licenses like MIT and BSD, and if the GPL could be relicensed to them, it would provide a very easy way for proprietary developers to strip the freedom from the GPLed code when passing a derivative on to their users.
It is unfortunate that it cannot be relicensed to other copyleft licenses, as that would not pose such a problem, but without an explicit list of licenses it can be relicensed to I’m not sure that’s even legally possible under copyright.
It is mutually exclusive. You cannot “protect freedom” and impose restrictions on freedom. 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 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.
Also, copyleft is just newspeak for copyright.
You’re being extremely disingenuous, and you know it.
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.
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.
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.
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?