• 0 Posts
  • 252 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 18th, 2023

help-circle
  • I think it kicks in when you distribute. For example, let’s say I have a fork of some GPL software and I’m maintaining it for myself. I don’t need to share the changes if I’m the only one using it.

    The point is that people using a software should be able to read and modify (and share) the source when they want to.

    IANAL and all that good stuff



  • I agree, but this is mostly an issue with permissive licenses like MIT. GPL and its variants have enough teeth in them to deal with shit like this. I’m scared of the rising popularity of these permissive licenses. A lot of indie devs have somehow been convinced by corpos that they should avoid the GPL and go with MIT and alike















  • fossphi@lemm.eetoPrivacy@lemmy.mlIs GrapheneOS not actually FOSS?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 days ago

    No, the FSF does define what free (as in freedom) software is. There are different licenses for linking (not running) against non free stuff. But being able to run proprietary programs doesn’t make something not free. Even on GNU certified free distros, one can run proprietary software. It just doesn’t come with it by default.

    There’s also a looser (imo) definition of open source software which doesn’t maintained all four freedoms.