this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
86 points (100.0% liked)

Slop.

657 readers
164 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/El Chisme

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
Lyudmila@hexbear.net
VILenin@hexbear.net
MiraculousMM@hexbear.net
gaystyleJoker@hexbear.net
Hestia@hexbear.net
kristina@hexbear.net
oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net
Diva@lemmy.ml
Diva@hexbear.net
86
The developer of "Copyparty", a genuinely nice piece of software, considers the GPL and AGPL "problematic". (hexbear.net)
submitted 1 month ago by Super_Lumalo@hexbear.net to c/slop@hexbear.net
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The dominance of libertarianism, and pro corporate licensing within the FOSS world is disgusting and annoying me. I don't have any articles or anything that is hard proof. But I do have this github post and graph I guess

And the other thing I have? A hunch no-i-in-pezza

I'm glad the software is free, but come the fuck on. "Problematic" for fucking who?? Google? It better be!

Thank you dessalines for having a spine, and choosing a proper license.

And the site that they link? It's not only highly pro corporate but also fucking lying!!!

It doesn't prevent you from selling shit!!! Shut the fuck up!!! I'm not making my work a way for you to easily profit, give shit back or fuck off maddened

They can keep making the shit that they do, but I ain't committing a single line of code to that fucker.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] into_highest_invite@lemmygrad.ml 25 points 1 month ago (2 children)

i haven't gotten much sleep and it's really early so apologies if i misunderstood the question. very broadly, there's two kinds of open source licenses: copyleft and permissive. generally, permissive licenses like MIT allow any usage of the code, including by copyrighting your own contributions or including it in copyrighted works. copyleft licenses require additions to the code to be open sourced too. this was a problem for apple when GNU code updated from GPLv2 to v3, which iirc added the restriction that any package that included licensed programs also had to be copyleft. this was a problem because apple had packaged a lot of GPL programs with macOS, so now they haven't been updated since 2007

[–] WhatDoYouMeanPodcast@hexbear.net 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm having trouble following the consequence cascade you're describing. The GPL license updated which tried to add in some copylefting (i.e. Apple was compelled to open source stuff to keep using it). Therefore, they simply stopped updating them so they wouldn't need the new license.

Is that it?

[–] into_highest_invite@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

yeah that's the situation as i understand it. obviously im not a lawyer and whatnot but the way i understand it apple would have been required to open source the entirety of macOS if they had included GPLv3 software. GPLv2 was also considered copyleft (in fact, the FSF, who is responsible for GPL, coined the term), but GPLv3 added more stipulations in response to practices by corporations (most notably TiVO) that were not appreciated by the free software community