What are the reasons for only working on GPL-licensed free software

>>59604529
One of the main benefits of GPL is that you can sell a proprietary license.

If you have an MIT license, you can only rely on donations. Stallman doesn't approve LLVM, so he probably doesn't approve MIT licensed projects in general.

File: sadfroginbed.jpg (28KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 640x360px

>>59604622
>Stallman doesn't approve LLVM
I like LLVM because I have an easier time contributing compared to the GCC Project.

>>59604529
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

All those licenses are FSF-approved free software licenses. You can use them for your work with a reasonable guarantee that your software will remain free.

Remember, choice of license depends greatly on the project and what goals you are trying to accomplish. You may choose to work on GPL-licensed projects if you want to enable more communication between contributors – it's intended to not just promote user freedom but to foster communities. The other licenses you mention tend to be more for "fire-and-forget" projects that are intended to get a lot of use but don't really set any rules for the community.

File: 14282374979959.jpg (56KB, 300x360px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 300x360px

>>59604778
I want to leave C/C++ for Rust but I feel dirty abandoning GPL.

>>59604906
You can write a GPL program in Rust though

>>59604685
Why is it harder to contribute to GCC?

>>59604917
All Rust tooling is MIT/Apache.

>>59604987
Legal hurdles for assigning copyright to code contributions, having to sign an agreement.

>>59604987
I forgot to mention that GCC development moves a lot slower for more than one reason.

I would never write a line of gpl-cucked code. Good thing it's being killed by MIT.

>>59605127
But it's for the f-freedom of the u-u-users.......

>>59604529
You as a developer are more protected with the GPL, credit will be given were credit is due.

>>59604622
>One of the main benefits of GPL is that you can sell a proprietary license.
Can you link me to a good source explaining this bit?
I've heard about it numerous times but never understood how exactly does this process work.

>>59605073
Yes, both Rust and LLVM were designed to get a lot of contributions quickly with disregard for legal/ethical issues. I personally have no problem with the choice of license, but I will not contribute code to them because I believe the communities will not last.

>>59605127
MIT/BSD is the ultimate cuck license. It allows proprietary software companies to take your project and use it to attack users' freedoms.

>>59604529
MIT sets you free from the freedom dictatorship.

>>59605297
Company A starts using your GPLed software.
Company A then decides they want to create a proprietary product, however they can't because GPL.
Then, you charge Company A a large amount of money to allow them to purchase a proprietary license from you.
This only works when you own all the copyrights to the software in question, because that way you can distribute it under however many different licenses you want.

>>59604987
the FSF is pretty much a lawyer organization in disguise so you have to go through a SHITLOAD of legalese to get any contributions in

>>59605349
So it's like the dual-licensing of Qt for personal and commercial use?

Interesting. I understand that GPL is the only lincense that allows this because other "free" licenses simply allow you to make the software proprietary without asking anyone.

Is there any way to own "all copyrights" in a collaborative project?
Or is it all nullified as soon as you accept a contribution from a 3rd party?