as I said in last post, I only see copyleft as a viable alternative. too many dev efforts forked and privatized. android should have been a warning. but many devs just think open source is enough. and they still think getting adapted by big corporation will not change the direction of projects.
I am personally going in the direction of testing and helping only copyleft projects. so I skipped RedoxOS. even-though I like rust and new microkernel OSes.
If I am going to give my time to a project (small as it is) I don’t want it to end up like android.
I completely agree, and a strong copyleft licence is something that GPLv3 does much better than its predecessor, which is unfortunately why it has not been adopted by the Linux kernel. I foolishly assumed that GrapheneOS, given the values it professes, would be distributed under the GPLv3 licence, but I have now discovered that this is not the case, in a move that I frankly cannot understand.
Hope that changes in the near future, but it’s not very likely to happen I guess
yea, a lot of open source projects are done by people that don’t see the point of copyleft software.
I think a lot of people just go with the 4 freedoms that RMS laid out.
when I read devs’ reasons to use non-copyleft license, it boils down to “I don’t want to limit freedom of later devs even if those devs are gonna fork it and make it private”. even when they say “I don’t care” they mean the same.
and they have the right to see it that way.
my thinking is that humanity used to not have copyright at all. and the reason we are not living in caves is that knowledge mostly was spread (even when going from father to son only).
so I think software needs to go that way as much as it can.
I understand that developing software needs money and I even understand patents to an extent. but shit gone mad and patents are gone crazy. android is THE shining prime example of what happens even with a company that at least pretended not to go this way (that was naive to think they wouldn’t)
that’s why I going to write any software I write (even though I am just starting programing) in the most copyleft license ever I find.
maybe even more stalman than gpl3.
btw is there any site that explains the practical diff between gpl2 and 3? not tldr but not in details either, just maybe explain case base what happens?
my hot take: while this is good for users in short term, in long term it just prolongs non-copyleft android OS hold for google.
my only hope for grapheneos is that they pointed that they may move from android too.
That’s the long-term plan, yeah. Moving from Linux entirely actually, as they mentioned a future microkernel project
as I said in last post, I only see copyleft as a viable alternative. too many dev efforts forked and privatized. android should have been a warning. but many devs just think open source is enough. and they still think getting adapted by big corporation will not change the direction of projects.
I am personally going in the direction of testing and helping only copyleft projects. so I skipped RedoxOS. even-though I like rust and new microkernel OSes.
If I am going to give my time to a project (small as it is) I don’t want it to end up like android.
I completely agree, and a strong copyleft licence is something that GPLv3 does much better than its predecessor, which is unfortunately why it has not been adopted by the Linux kernel. I foolishly assumed that GrapheneOS, given the values it professes, would be distributed under the GPLv3 licence, but I have now discovered that this is not the case, in a move that I frankly cannot understand. Hope that changes in the near future, but it’s not very likely to happen I guess
yea, a lot of open source projects are done by people that don’t see the point of copyleft software.
I think a lot of people just go with the 4 freedoms that RMS laid out. when I read devs’ reasons to use non-copyleft license, it boils down to “I don’t want to limit freedom of later devs even if those devs are gonna fork it and make it private”. even when they say “I don’t care” they mean the same.
and they have the right to see it that way. my thinking is that humanity used to not have copyright at all. and the reason we are not living in caves is that knowledge mostly was spread (even when going from father to son only).
so I think software needs to go that way as much as it can.
I understand that developing software needs money and I even understand patents to an extent. but shit gone mad and patents are gone crazy. android is THE shining prime example of what happens even with a company that at least pretended not to go this way (that was naive to think they wouldn’t)
that’s why I going to write any software I write (even though I am just starting programing) in the most copyleft license ever I find.
maybe even more stalman than gpl3.
btw is there any site that explains the practical diff between gpl2 and 3? not tldr but not in details either, just maybe explain case base what happens?