- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
I just found about this distro, which is relatively new (2021). Its specificity is that it doesn’t features any GNU software by default, which I find interesting.
I just found about this distro, which is relatively new (2021). Its specificity is that it doesn’t features any GNU software by default, which I find interesting.
Sure, go ahead, use licenses that let Apple steal everything later.
Not using GNU software doesn’t mean you don’t use any copyleft licenses or GPL.
It is good to have a diversity of software. That doesn’t make it stupid. Most of the alternatives to GNU programs are GPL licensed anyway.
This is patently false. Most alternatives to GNU software are permissively licensed (MIT, BSD, Apache, etc.). Just look at musl, clang, bzip2, and the various “new” userland replacements like ripgrep, neovim, bat, exa, dust, etc. The one notable exception is busybox which is GPL 2.
I don’t know why this trend exists, but I am constantly disappointed that talented young open source devs choose to sacrifice software freedom just because it will make their software easier to integrate in proprietary contexts. This strikes me as pure vanity or greed on the devs part so that their software is more popular and maybe even monetizable.
I hope that trend halts, but time will tell.
MIT, BSD, Apache, are all cuckold licenses
Arguing over licences to judge how much a piece of software is worth is sterile IMO.
If you personally cannot use software that’s not GPL’d, then it’s fine. But there’s no need to sound condescending like this, it brings absolutely nothing to the table. This could only result in a flame war (and it already is unfortunately, seeing the comments below), which is kind of sad.
So yeah, no prob mate, this is not for you, we get it. See you on the next thread 🫡