> I personally hate GPLv3, AGPL, LGPLv3, etc. with a fiery burning passion; thank god we were able to see some transformative projects emerge under actually free licenses before everything got ruined.
Why do you hate them so much? Is it strictly as a developer, or as a user?
As a developer I've certainly felt constrained and annoyed by them at times, and I'm very glad there are alternative open source licenses available, but as a user I can't imagine a scenario where you would hate them. After all, the freedom they guarantee is to the user, not the developer.
Even as a developer though, the family has it's place. I don't think Linux would be a thing had it had a more "permissive" license. That GPL is what forces the big corps to contribute their improvements back. If not for the GPL, I think it would be in a position similar to that of BSD, and the majority of users would have no choice but to use a proprietary OS
Notice the lack of "GPL" in that list, and I'm partially in agreement.
The GPL is amazing and wonderful, but the various "attachments" of the GPL are more weaponized (and to the detriment of users!) than the GPL ever was.
I'm glad the kernel stuck with GPLv2, and I wish other things had, too. A GPLv3 Linux Kernel would likely have helped a BSD tremendously, though but I think having everyone work on the same kernel without reservations has been an unmitigated good.
It's different enough that Apple thinks it's only safe for them to ship GPLv2 software on MacOS devices, not GPLv3.
This might have something to do with the way they sign shipped versions and use TPM security to verify what's run, even though you can manually disable some of this if you want.
So all GPL the software shipped on MacOS devices is stuck at the last version which used GPLv2, and they rewrote Samba which they had previously shipped, whose last GPLv2 version is too out of date to keep using.
Why do you hate them so much? Is it strictly as a developer, or as a user?
As a developer I've certainly felt constrained and annoyed by them at times, and I'm very glad there are alternative open source licenses available, but as a user I can't imagine a scenario where you would hate them. After all, the freedom they guarantee is to the user, not the developer.
Even as a developer though, the family has it's place. I don't think Linux would be a thing had it had a more "permissive" license. That GPL is what forces the big corps to contribute their improvements back. If not for the GPL, I think it would be in a position similar to that of BSD, and the majority of users would have no choice but to use a proprietary OS