• comfortable_doug [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is why I don’t agree with the GPL. It’s perfect in every way, except for the allowance to utilize the licensed work or derivatives thereof for monetary gain. Fuck that shit. You got it for free, you give it away for free.

    • drspod@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It only takes one paying customer to take the published FOSS code from the commercial software and re-distribute it for everyone to benefit from the commercial modifications made to it. That’s the point, a commercial use of the software can not make the source proprietary.

      This is what Redhat recently found out when they tried to hide their RHEL source behind a paywall. Attempting to tie the hands of their customers with an additional license agreement forbidding distribution of the source is a violation of the GPL.

    • Dumeinst@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      So wait, you’re saying that anything created or developed using opens source software should be given away for free?

    • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Derivative work CAN be sold or used for monetary gain. Its just you have to give the source code too and anyone receiving it can share too. I see GPLv3 perfect