GPL and FOSS licenses don't work in the EU

doesn't really matter

>>59489227
Thanks, now I have a reason to hate the EU

>>59489227
Cool another reason to hate the bureaucratic shitshow that is the European Union.

>>59489227
This is a good thing and it should have always been the case (in civilised parts of the world, too.) Of course, linking to a library doesn't make your program a derivative work of that library. You only make a derivative work if you change the library itself. It shouldn't matter if the library is statically or dynamically linked either, or if the GPL work is an external program that you exec(). Non-viral FOSS licences are fine. Viral FOSS licences are not.

>>59489227
So, if there's a leak like PrestoOpera, can i link it in another program i made?

>>59489227
Excellent. This means well for GPLv2 adoption. No more fear of viral licensing in corporate climates.

>>59489771
No, because you're still redistributing something without permission.

Isn't this the main criticism BSDfags have of GPL, that it's too much like a virus?

BSD is as good as GPL

>>59489905
>tfw law endorses you to stay as much cucked as possible

>>59489402
>>59489624
>"i'm for freedum so give me your code or i'll use the courts to punish you and steal it."

GPL is not freedom. BSD and MIT are freedom. GPL is hippie "the world better work the way I want or I'll throw a temper tantrum" bullshit.

It should be 100% legal to statically or dynamically link GPL code without affecting the IP rights of any other code in the program. I'm fine with a license that says "if you modify Freedum Library you must make the modified source to Freedum Library available." But saying you then also have to make all the source code that works with Freedum Library publicly available is absolute bullshit. Why should freetards expect anyone to respect their property when they so blatantly hope to infect and violate the property rights of others?

EU is right on this one. Hopefully the US will follow them on this.

And if you really give a shit about freedom, release code under BSD or MIT licenses.

>>59490952
>GPL is not freedom. BSD and MIT are freedom.
I hope this was posted ironically

>>59490952
> I'm fine with a license that says "if you modify Freedum Library you must make the modified source to Freedum Library available." But saying you then also have to make all the source code that works with Freedum Library publicly available is absolute bullshit.
It is LGPL

>>59489227
one more reason to vote for a euroskeptic party(in my case none unfortunately)

>>59489227
This is the same Europe that is eating itself and feeding its shit to the african pygmies, right?

No1cares.

>>59489227
lgpl exists for such cases

>https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/eupl/news/why-viral-licensing-ghost
author is retarded

File: tmp_22346-14621998706191615411769.jpg (27KB, 414x508px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 414x508px

>>59489227
can't remember when the EU did anything for me
only thing I see is the 7% additional tax on my paycheck

a fucking mafia it is

>>59491136
You can travel and work in the EU freely. You may not care about that, but I may not care about you

Based EU
Fuck that kike stallman

Linking, as opposed to ompiled in code. And if you're statically linking you're going to be redistributing the other code anyway. Disingenuous OP.

>>59491606
>>59492144
>>59489386
These.

>>59489227
I'm mostly an EU-supporter, but it seriously needs reforms if the GPL isn't valid there.