pull down to refresh

500 sats \ 2 replies \ @nullama 5 Feb \ on: Why I'm Paranoid privacy
So if you want to help fight off the attacks against humankind, help by writing GPLv3 licensed software. MIT licensed software is not helpful because companies can take it, make it addictive, and attack humanity with your code.
If you look at the real world history, you will see that many companies don't really care about the license. That's partly what motivated this project to exist: https://gpl-violations.org
Be more like Satoshi, and release your code with as few constraints as possible, i.e. MIT:
If the only library is closed source, then there's a project to make an open source one.
If the only library is GPL, then there's a project to make a non-GPL one.
If the best library is MIT, Boost, new-BSD or public domain, then we can stop re-writing it.
I don't question that GPL is a good license for operating systems, especially since non-GPL code is allowed to interface with the OS. For smaller projects, I think the fear of a closed-source takeover is overdone.
write
preview
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @LibertasBR 9 Feb
I believe that open source is, and always will be, the best practice for a freer future that drives knowledge forward.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja OP 5 Feb
If the only library is GPL, then there's a project to make a non-GPL one.
GOOD. Make them spend the man hours. The MIT license is a weak license that doesn't know how to say NO.
But that's enough sats wasted on software license flame wars. If you really want to keep this up, ping me on nostr or something lol.
reply