Do you enjoy seeing your freedom fade away, /g/?

>>61572842
GPL3 made it impossible to use GPL for many things.
Stallman caused this.

>>61572890
redpill me on <=GPL2 and GPL3

File: 1484899189853.png (47KB, 470x345px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 470x345px

>>61572842
I blame shills like Cisco and other quacks promoting MIT/BSD and other idiotic licenses with "alternative marketing" on the internet.

>>61573058
GPL <= v2 is great but allows people to take a project, use it in some product, and prevent the user from replacing it. This is called Tivoization.

GPL v3 prevents Tivoization but is also a lot longer, harder to read, and is incompatible with GPL <= v2 as a result.

>>61573199
So a company takes software published under <= GPL2, uses it in their non free stuff and you are not allowed to edit the software originally published under GPL on this stuff?
This is a hole if I've ever seen one.. Damn that's harsh

>>61572842
(((freedom)))
I'm glad to see that passive aggressive shit become less common.

>>61573327
Exactly. That's why they had to fix it with GPL v3.

>>61573340
Taking this into consideration ...

>>61572842
... I like this.

These companies are just assholes taking software that was intended by the dev(s) to be FOSS being taken away and ”abused” like that.. Truly sickening

>>61573340
Except they did it in a way that makes usage impossible for mixed use cases, so anyone who wasn't 100% FOSS decided that GPLv3 was a really bad move and moved away from *GPL licenses as a whole.
Moreover, many new players decided to avoid GPL in the first place.

>>61573423
Until you realise the reason SAMBA hasn't progressed in ~8 years is because Apple clocked out after they moved to GPLv3 - Apple was bankrolling SAMBA development, but after the move to GPLv3 complicated their usage of SAMBA in OSX - they dropped it and their support entirely and made their own internal proprietary client (which is far better than SAMBA3 now...)

File: FB_IMG_1501082318132.jpg (40KB, 843x843px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 843x843px

GPL is a commie license. More and more software is using truly free licenses, like MIT or Apache.

Get fucked, Communists. You're scum.

>>61573466
Also the Linux Kernel wouldn't exist as it is without corporate support, which would dry up in moments if the kernel moved to GPLv3.
Torvalds knows this and won't ever let it migrate to GPLv3.

>>61573489
>Can't differentiate socialism from communism

Never change burger

File: FB_IMG_1501082297002.jpg (20KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 960x960px

>>61573538
You will hang someday soon.

>>61572890
People removing the "or any later" clause cause this.

>>61573058
GPL3 differs from GPL2 in following things:

1) Patents, i.e. you can't circumvent GPL3 by using GPL software as something you build your software on, but then don't share it because while source code may be available, you patent the code. It was possible with GPL2.

2) DMCA, i.e. you can't circumvent GPL3 with using DMCA which makes circumventing DRM illegal in US. It was possible with GPL2.

3) Tivoization, i.e. you can't circumvent GPL3 using digital encryption, when you release the source code, but not the necessary cryptographic keys.

>>61572842
Still about 33% too high

>>61572842
no
the BSD license is awful

>>61574128
>emblying gpl and bsd are the only foss licenses.