Conversation

Notices

1. Linux Walt (@lnxw37a1) (lnxw37a1@loadaverage.org)'s status on Sunday, 11-Mar-2018 10:03:45 EDT Linux Walt (@lnxw37a1)
   -- Not the same (copyleft) license is non-free
   
   This isn't what anyone says. What they say is that many free software licenses are made to allow restricting freedoms by encapsulating the free software in a proprietary application, while most copyleft licenses are designed to extend freedom to end-users across any program that uses them.
   
   There are weak copyleft licenses, such as the LGPL and MPL that do not affect the wrapping or encapsulating program as much.
   
   I always chuckle a little when someone is surprised that a company chose to encapsulate a BSD/MIT/Apache licensed program in their software that acts like malware. Why do you think a company will insist on non-copyleft software? Sure, there's some "intellectual property" protection aspect, but too often, it turns out that they want to do something deceitful and harmful, and fear that requirements of copyleft licenses will lead to exposure.
   
   CC: @mangeurdenuage
   1. Linux Walt (@lnxw37a1) (lnxw37a1@loadaverage.org)'s status on Sunday, 11-Mar-2018 10:04:30 EDT Linux Walt (@lnxw37a1)

      in reply to
      I have no interest in joining the above thread, but some things are so wrong that I can't let them pass without an answer.