• 1 Post
  • 21 Comments
Joined 25 days ago
Cake day: October 16th, 2025
  • myszka@lemmy.mlOPtoOpen Source@lemmy.ml•My thoughts on GPL vs. permissive licenses
    1·
    5 minutes ago

    Gpl doesn’t prevent monetisation/commercialisation

    Sorry, I used a wrong word there. I meant closing the source code and turning the project into a product, aiming commercial profits instead of fulfilling users’ needs.

    You can also dual license

    Hmm, didn’t think of it… But doesn’t it defeat the GPL’s purpose of preventing closing the source code?

    There are lots of MIT projects that are carried by companies.

    Okay, my experience with MIT is probably too limited, never heard of projects like that. But why do those companies publish their source code? Aren’t they loosing profits?

    Anyway, my point was about projects that are started by enthusiasts and then, as they grow popular, receive a lot of contributions from companies, which (as I initially thought at least) would otherwise make them close sourced and so keep FOSS projects “clean”. But yeah if companies have a reason to keep their contributions open source even they don’t have to, I’m confused

  • myszka@lemmy.mlOPtoOpen Source@lemmy.ml•My thoughts on GPL vs. permissive licenses
    1·
    22 minutes ago

    Wow, didn’t know OpenWrt exists because of GPL. Also I like the perpetually-free vs. temporarily-free distinction Codeberg is making, it really clears things up.

    Yeah, I could totally see why copyleft exists and how much we gain from using it. In fact, I use exclusively GPL for my personal projects. However, I still find it a trade-off, because having contributions from corporate-minded developpers is something I think is often bad for FOSS projects. Take all those dubious software design decisions Red Hat has made for example.

  • myszka@lemmy.mltoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•Is the world actually worse than it was 25 years ago, or does it just feel that way because I'm now more aware of how dysfunctional and cruel everything seems?
    11·
    14 days ago

    It is getting worse. Humanity is entering a deeper and deeper crisis. Alienation is growing with each passing year. The inner contradiction in every one of us is getting more intense, which manifests itself in more external conflicts: between people, between people and nature, between everything.

    That being sad, this crisis just highlights the slow death of the previous, deeply troubled era and marks the transition to another way of living. The destructive aspect of things, that we all suffer from, is therefore not absolute. It is not going to destroy neither us nor the world around us. It is balanced off by the progress that we’re making.

    Take 3d printing, for example. If you think of it, it is actually the (very) beginning of something fundamentally new: local automated production. Automation eliminates the routine part of producing goods, which makes the process creative again, while not compromising on efficiency. This leads to production becoming a means of self-actualisation rather than something that takes away all your freedom. And since the process of making new things gives you value instead of taking it, the need for charging others for using your creations vanishes, giving way to free exchange and collaboration. This, if applied globally, would solve the fundamental issue of our current society, where creating good takes away just as much, making any growth a form of self-destruction. And solving that would spare us of all different kinds of problems, ranging from pollution, wars to emotional abuse.

    So I think by getting worse it’s also getting better and these difficult times we’ve happened to live in are still marvelous.

    P.S. Apart from 3d printing, there’s, of course, free software movement as well, which in my opinion is also part of the global free production evolution