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.
The only reason you perceive my comment as disingenuous is because you’re on the authoritarian side of the political spectrum. Again: me writing new code on existing software and wanting to license it as MIT takes away nobody’s freedom, it just doesn’t comply with your dictator’s fantasy.
The rest of your comment is really just you trying to cope with the insanity of the licence you choose to defend. There’s legal precedent saying adding to code doesn’t count as using the code but the FSF will still sue you if you license your work how you see fit. Authoritarianism at its best.
@stevedice@Adanisi when you writing code in any project, you have copyright on your own code. Nothing prevents you reusing your code with other (even closed source) form until you sign some additional agreement. Yes, you cannot change license of other’s code and keep mixed code non-GPL, so you might be need to keep your code in separate file with permissive GPL compatible license to prevent mixing with GPL code.
Even if you keep your code in a separate file, if you link to GPL code, according to the FSF, your code should be GPL. The law says otherwise but they would still sue you.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
The only reason you perceive my comment as disingenuous is because you’re on the authoritarian side of the political spectrum. Again: me writing new code on existing software and wanting to license it as MIT takes away nobody’s freedom, it just doesn’t comply with your dictator’s fantasy.
The rest of your comment is really just you trying to cope with the insanity of the licence you choose to defend. There’s legal precedent saying adding to code doesn’t count as using the code but the FSF will still sue you if you license your work how you see fit. Authoritarianism at its best.
ad hominem
Whatever you want to believe.
deleted by creator
What you stated was a lie. I don’t know what to tell you 🤷🏻
deleted by creator
@stevedice @Adanisi when you writing code in any project, you have copyright on your own code. Nothing prevents you reusing your code with other (even closed source) form until you sign some additional agreement. Yes, you cannot change license of other’s code and keep mixed code non-GPL, so you might be need to keep your code in separate file with permissive GPL compatible license to prevent mixing with GPL code.
Even if you keep your code in a separate file, if you link to GPL code, according to the FSF, your code should be GPL. The law says otherwise but they would still sue you.