• within_epsilon@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    What is socialist about GPL?

    Being forced to open source seems like a pyramid scheme. Better examples of socialist and libertarian politics are licenses like MIT or BSD. They embody use without damage.

    Stallman seems to have a flawed understanding of hierarchy and power. He exhibits such in the infectious GPL and pedophillic political takes. I purposely avoid GPL or derivatives when considering libraries.

    • galileopie@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I say socialist because of forced redistribution of any code changes, nobody is allowed to keep any new development for themself to use.

      The argument that GPL helps everybody to benefit equally and nobody can keep the code for themself, that’s what a socialist says for they government must take everybody’s money to help those in need, except now the ones who had the money previously have become needy themselves and the government has all f the money and it’s not helping anybody.

      It safer for software developers to bad GPL to protect themselves from any troubles and develop on any other operating system where they can choose what code to share and what to keep secret.

      Look at how well Sony has done with FreeBSD on Playatation 4 and 5 with the BSD license. The Playstation system stays proprietary but they send code to FreeBSD for any network and server issues. Maybe Sony refused Linux for PS4 due to GPL to protect company secrets.

      • davehtaylor@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        I say socialist because of forced redistribution of any code changes, nobody is allowed to keep any new development for themself to use.

        You have a flawed understanding of socialism