I think it's just the GPL family of licenses that tend tend to cause most problems. I appreciate their intent, but the outcome often leaves a lot to be desired.

▲

nothrabannosir 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The GPL exists for the benefit of end users, not developers. It being a chore for developers who want to deny their users the software freedoms is a feature, not a bug.

▲

red_admiral an hour ago | parent [-]

How does the GPL help a user who doesn't write code themselves?

▲

pocksuppet an hour ago | parent [-]

They have the right to use the code, and they have the right to use improvements that someone else made, and they have the right to get someone to make improvements for them.

	▲	mgulick 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They also have the guarantee that the code licensed under the GPL, and all future enhancements to it, will remain free software. The same is not true of the MIT license's weak-copyleft.

▲

orphea 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you have ill intentions or maybe you're a corporation that wants to use someone else's work for free without contributing anything back, then yes, I can see how GPL licenses "tend to cause problems".

▲

vova_hn2 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I like to think about GPL as a kind of an artistic performance and an elaborate critique of the whole concept of copyright.

Like, "we don't like copyright, but since you insist on enforcing it and we can't do anything against it, we will invent a clever way to use your own rules against you".

	▲	jonathanstrange 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That is not really the motivation behind GPL licenses. These licenses have been designed to ensure by legal means that anyone can learn from the source code of software, fix bugs on their own, and modify the software to their needs.

▲

duskdozer 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If the GPL causes you problems, then it's working as intended.

▲

Orygin 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wtf are these comments? A LGPL licensed project, guaranteed to be free and open source, being LLM-washed to a permissive license, and GPL is the problem here?

They are literally stealing from open source, but it's the original license that is the issue?

▲

spoiler 5 hours ago | parent [-]

They have been maintaining the project for years. It's not like some Joe Random with ChatGPT randomly entered the scene

	▲	Orygin 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And? Doesn't give them any right to re-license the code. Especially not to strip rights for other users.

▲

cap11235 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And what exactly are some of these problems?

▲

jonathanstrange 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why? What's your problem with them? They do exactly what they're supposed to do, to ensure that future derivatives of the source code have to be distributed under the same license and distribution respects fundamental freedoms.