6 ms·

>Personally, it makes me happy if people can make a business using a bit of my work Copyleft doesn't say that they can't, it says they have to make their chang

>Personally, it makes me happy if people can make a business using a bit of my work Copyleft doesn't say that they can't, it says they have to make their changes available

Joel_Mckay 10d ago
I am mostly just an anti-contaminating license proponent. Porting to multiple platforms gets complicated if you include a 3rd party commercial library with a project that on linking demands it also become publicly accessible. For example, if someone wants to do something creative... they shouldn't have to cite 400 different peoples licenses. That isn't sustainable or fun. I will stick with Apache 2.0, but understand different folks have other use-cases =3
- pocksuppet 10d ago
  That is why the FSF invented just one GPL, and said everyone should use this one or later. Then when they invented another one, it was automatically compatible. This way, the license is compatible, and you don't have to give up any freedoms.
  - Joel_Mckay 10d ago
    GPL and LGPL works for a lot of people, but becomes a persistent issue when porting to other OS. They both still become a contaminating license if you have to static link something, embed 3rd party blobs, or even use icons for a consistent user interface experience. Having a less restrictive FOSS compatible license that doesn't obligate people to modify the general purpose libraries for their edge case has proven important. GPL only truly makes sense if targeting an OS supporting shared-object library paradigms. This is part of the reason why 95% of commercial Applications are running in an emulated/wrapper on the nix platforms. The year of the Linux Desktop is still a ways off, and the foundational library structures are under constant upgrade or permutation. Snap/Flatpak/AppImage and Docker/RancherVM were all designed to try and mitigate the compatibility chaos of perpetual nix Beta release cultures. It has some advantages, but also a lot of disadvantages similar to the Butterfly Effect bugs when something with the same name slightly changes behavior. =3
    - cindyllm 9d ago
      [dead]
    - pocksuppet 9d ago
      The GPL excludes system libraries from contamination issues.
      - Joel_Mckay 9d ago
        LGPL does not allow static linking without disclosure. It is why the wxWidgets has a license that allows creating monolithic commercial blob dependent binaries for Windows, Linux Gtk/X11, and MacOS. https://wxwidgets.org/about/licence/ https://wxwidgets.org/about/licence/ People should not static link GPL/LGPL code to closed source blobs, and expect copyright/copyleft trolls to leave their project violating licenses. =3
        pocksuppet 8d ago
        Why would you want to not disclose that you used an LGPL library?
        Joel_Mckay 8d ago
        LGPL requires whatever you static link it with is GPL/OSS. This is sometimes impossible with mystery binary blobs from manufacturers. =3
knorker 10d ago
Which could make the business untenable. I'm not GP commenter, but I do want to be useful to these too. And as others have said the deceptive term of "plugging the SaaS loophole" ignores that it means most software cannot be combined with it. Most. By far most. Sure, some people will say "well fuck that software". And that's a stance. But it ain't freedom.
- ghaff 10d ago
  One problem is that people (mostly--we'll ignore the various edge cases) know what traditional *nix-style distribution looks like. No one knows what network interactions resolve to if someone with deep pockets and/or a grudge wants to file a lawsuit. So better to just run away. Use an AGPL license if you like but--and I'm not even a lawyer--but I'll probably just walk away. Your software is probably not that interesting to compensate for any risk.
  - knorker 10d ago
    Yup. As I said in another comment "I treat AGPL as a rabies infected animal. I may have uses for it, but I'll keep it EXTREMELY segregated from everything else".
    - Joel_Mckay 9d ago
      Indeed, keeping track of every shader/asset/texture under CC BY-SA 4.0 was a nonstarter. For media, 3D files, game FX, and icons it is only CC0 Public Domain projects we recommend to folks having fun. Keeping track of every Copyright and Copyleft trolls content demands is just too much work for small hobbies. =3 We also financially support people clearing barriers for future artists and creatives (clean Blender resources.) https://polyhaven.com/ https://polyhaven.com/ And procedural textures with bake export (actually made Blender usable for mere mortals): https://sanctus.gumroad.com/l/SLibrary https://sanctus.gumroad.com/l/SLibrary One of the problems we found was people reselling other peoples pirated works, or plug-ins for features already in Blender for free. Cons will always con regardless of community intentions. Make something fun and beautiful instead =3

>Personally, it makes me happy if people can make a business using a bit of my work Copyleft doesn't say that they can't, it says they have to make their changes available

Joel_Mckay 10d ago

I am mostly just an anti-contaminating license proponent. Porting to multiple platforms gets complicated if you include a 3rd party commercial library with a project that on linking demands it also become publicly accessible. For example, if someone wants to do something creative... they shouldn't have to cite 400 different peoples licenses. That isn't sustainable or fun. I will stick with Apache 2.0, but understand different folks have other use-cases =3

pocksuppet 10d ago
That is why the FSF invented just one GPL, and said everyone should use this one or later. Then when they invented another one, it was automatically compatible. This way, the license is compatible, and you don't have to give up any freedoms.
- Joel_Mckay 10d ago
  GPL and LGPL works for a lot of people, but becomes a persistent issue when porting to other OS. They both still become a contaminating license if you have to static link something, embed 3rd party blobs, or even use icons for a consistent user interface experience. Having a less restrictive FOSS compatible license that doesn't obligate people to modify the general purpose libraries for their edge case has proven important. GPL only truly makes sense if targeting an OS supporting shared-object library paradigms. This is part of the reason why 95% of commercial Applications are running in an emulated/wrapper on the nix platforms. The year of the Linux Desktop is still a ways off, and the foundational library structures are under constant upgrade or permutation. Snap/Flatpak/AppImage and Docker/RancherVM were all designed to try and mitigate the compatibility chaos of perpetual nix Beta release cultures. It has some advantages, but also a lot of disadvantages similar to the Butterfly Effect bugs when something with the same name slightly changes behavior. =3
  - cindyllm 9d ago
    [dead]
  - pocksuppet 9d ago
    The GPL excludes system libraries from contamination issues.
    - Joel_Mckay 9d ago
      LGPL does not allow static linking without disclosure. It is why the wxWidgets has a license that allows creating monolithic commercial blob dependent binaries for Windows, Linux Gtk/X11, and MacOS. https://wxwidgets.org/about/licence/ https://wxwidgets.org/about/licence/ People should not static link GPL/LGPL code to closed source blobs, and expect copyright/copyleft trolls to leave their project violating licenses. =3
      - pocksuppet 8d ago
        Why would you want to not disclose that you used an LGPL library?
        Joel_Mckay 8d ago
        LGPL requires whatever you static link it with is GPL/OSS. This is sometimes impossible with mystery binary blobs from manufacturers. =3

knorker 10d ago

Which could make the business untenable. I'm not GP commenter, but I do want to be useful to these too. And as others have said the deceptive term of "plugging the SaaS loophole" ignores that it means most software cannot be combined with it. Most. By far most. Sure, some people will say "well fuck that software". And that's a stance. But it ain't freedom.

ghaff 10d ago
One problem is that people (mostly--we'll ignore the various edge cases) know what traditional *nix-style distribution looks like. No one knows what network interactions resolve to if someone with deep pockets and/or a grudge wants to file a lawsuit. So better to just run away. Use an AGPL license if you like but--and I'm not even a lawyer--but I'll probably just walk away. Your software is probably not that interesting to compensate for any risk.
- knorker 10d ago
  Yup. As I said in another comment "I treat AGPL as a rabies infected animal. I may have uses for it, but I'll keep it EXTREMELY segregated from everything else".
  - Joel_Mckay 9d ago
    Indeed, keeping track of every shader/asset/texture under CC BY-SA 4.0 was a nonstarter. For media, 3D files, game FX, and icons it is only CC0 Public Domain projects we recommend to folks having fun. Keeping track of every Copyright and Copyleft trolls content demands is just too much work for small hobbies. =3 We also financially support people clearing barriers for future artists and creatives (clean Blender resources.) https://polyhaven.com/ https://polyhaven.com/ And procedural textures with bake export (actually made Blender usable for mere mortals): https://sanctus.gumroad.com/l/SLibrary https://sanctus.gumroad.com/l/SLibrary One of the problems we found was people reselling other peoples pirated works, or plug-ins for features already in Blender for free. Cons will always con regardless of community intentions. Make something fun and beautiful instead =3