| ▲ | preisschild 5 days ago |
| > You are no doubt well aware that nobody will ever use a GPLv3 libxml2 Why wouldn't other FOSS projects like Gnome Web for example not use GPLv3 licensed software? |
|
| ▲ | imtringued 5 days ago | parent [-] |
| Because according to the Gitlab comment you've taken that excerpt from, companies are so allergic to the GPL that they will not only avoid using the GPL version of libxml2, no. They will maintain a MIT fork of libxml2 out of spite, even though they've been actively running away from their responsibility to do so. |
| |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Let them maintain it. We can take their permissive code and add it to our AGPLv3 projects literally no questions asked, we just have to replicate the copyright notice and license file. Meanwhile they can't take our copyleft code without also copylefting any improvements they distribute. And with AGPLv3, network use is distribution. | | |
| ▲ | blueg3 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It's MIT-licensed, so they don't have to share their changes. That'll make it harder to take their changes. | | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Let them keep it. Refusing to share kills their open washing as well. Everyone will see them for what they are. |
|
|
|
