Post #4712915 · Elektrine

2026-09-15 23:10 UTC

I actually an agree an independent rust project would be really cool. If it was also GPL. I have yet to encounter any argument against GPL that doesn’t boil down to corpo boot licking. You say “Even if it ends up being in a proprietary program, it’s better than not being able to use the code”. This is a bad faith argument. Everyone can use GPL code freely, the restriction is only that you must also publish under GPL if you publish. I’m sorry your favorite corporation can’t profit off community projects without giving back to that community… not. If GPL was a real problem BSD would have overtaken Linux ages ago. But it didn’t because GPL is good not just for the community but for the project. The only people that don’t stand to gain from GPL are corporations that want to monopolize the technology.

Replies (2)

@thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 2026-09-15 23:33

One example is that GPL games cannot be published in Steam, with using Steams proprietary tools and features. And in general I am not actually against for any company to use MIT licensed products without open sourcing their own proprietary tools. It would be nice if they open sourced it, but I am against in forcing companies to do so. Now I understand the risks involved here, but its not like MIT license is the devil, just like GPL can be problematic in some cases, MIT can too.

Open ##4713197
@t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2026-09-17 11:37

GPL is bad because it perpetuates the concept of durable intellectual property ownership/ licensing over supposedly “Free” (as in libre) code. Durable licenses are all bad. Unlicense is the only true FOSS license, with an ‘F’. Notable and very honorable examples of projects that use Unlicense are youtube-dl and yt-dlp (and obviously, those are not programs intended to benefit corporations). Now you have heard an argument against GPL that is not about corporations.

Open ##4736770