On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
You haven't really said anything relevant to the post.
The issue is with how the GPL defines proper use of
pre-existing works. The ultimately point is that they
arbitrarily decide how a work uses another based on "fork and
exec" and "library". My point is that those are ultimately
artificial because whether we call a function/app through a
library or through a command line, they are effectively the
same(the difference being performance/convenience, which is the
whole point of loading a library vs using the command line).
They admit this in the gpl FAQ(if you read it you will see) but
the fact that they still create arbitrary division suggests the
license is somewhat meaningless/incompetent.
Licenses should be more specific in their terminology and their
behaviors and effects rather than using arbitrary divisions.
Also, while not proof, the fact that the majority of donations
to the foundation go to the lawyers(if true) also suggest that
it is somewhat of a scam(at the very least, something is fishy).
This is not the proper place to blog about software license
preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations against an
organization you don't like. There are other sites for that.
