• trevor (any/all) @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the other projects are licensed with a GPL, there is no issue doing any of these things (except using them for proprietary purposes later), which is the point. If you licensed your project incorrectly, that isn’t the GPL-licensed project’s fault.

    • taladar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you licensed your project incorrectly

      If you think other people disagreeing with you on how to license their own work is “incorrect” maybe you are the one not really in favor of freedom.

      • trevor (any/all) @lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        GPL is more freedom for users and developers. MIT is less freedom for users because it grants more “freedom” for some company to exploit the developer’s labor by taking it to make something proprietary with it.

        If you want to use GPL code, pushover licenses are incorrect because they protect the user and developer from this nonsense.

        • taladar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          GPL is just as bad as proprietary licenses in the sense that GPL makes the user worry about the licensing of some library they just want to use. MIT, BSD,… give the code user the freedom to avoid worrying about licensing bullshit. GPL meanwhile doesn’t really solve any of the problems you claim it solves because all it does is duplicate effort and the non-GPL duplicate is used in a lot of places where a single copy of the code could be used if the GPL-using author hadn’t stubbornly insisted on a disproven theory of how GPL will save us.