I agree at the point, that everyone should use that license he like.

Btw, the easiest first step would have been: mail every contributor (there are not that many in that case) that provided more then hast some minor fixes and ask for permission. That is a valid way to change the license.

No, I think, that would not work this way, you have to ask every contributor, no matter how big the influence was. And everyone must agree unanimously. It’s almost an impossible task.

Perhaps this is our fundamental difference. I write code, solve my small task and have fun by doing it. If someone can get something of it, it’s twice as nice.

Well at first, nice that we have a kernel developer here, it’s not so easy to get your code into. And second, nope, I do not contributed to the kernel. I once wrote a module for educational purposes a long long time ago. Then FUSE came along and it helped me to solve the task with “more comfort”.

Now they have taken the work of thousands of contributors and take all the money.

I have no problem with it.

So, what exactly was your argument here?

Duno, you tried to convince me that the xGPL restrictions are only for my benefit. I strongly disagree with that opinion, that’s all. And I do not really care about argument, if something is used more often, then it’s best suited for me. I avoid to contribute to GPL projects and prefer some with MIT or BSD licenses.

I am old enough to remember buying a fucking Borland license I hope you are old enough to agree with me that TurboVision was fucking awesome.

I work on gcc code All the hate on you. No, no, joking, I appreciate your work. gcc is a mess, I know.

What’s wrong with OSX?

It’s not naive – naive is believing Linux’ success comes only from GPL. That’s ridiculous. Windows sells like crazy too, does that make its license the nonplusultra?

Linux booms because of Open Source (not just GPL), sponsoring (IBM, RedHat), thousands of volunteers, and pure luck. Without GPL? Sure, some BSD-derivative would’ve eaten that niche.

GCC? Without GPL we’d have more compilers – not just one monopolist. You’re confusing protection with innovation death.

I’ve heard that “corporate parasite” argument way too often, but it’s massively overrated. Open Source allows selling anyway, MIT, BSD and GPL all do. If someone makes smart changes and lives off it, that’s awesome, not reprehensible!

GPL only forces source disclosure when distributing binaries, not for every damn thing – imagine you land a juicy company contract: you tweak a GPL work, deliver the binaries, and only have to hand the modified source TO THAT COMPANY, NOT the whole world! That’s why AGPL fanatics had to invent their SaaS trap. For me as a hobby coder, GPLs are just pointless headaches instead of real freedom.

GPL licenses are straight-up cancer, they force every derivative or linked project to adopt their viral copyleft rules, nuking proprietary reuse or easy mixing with other codebases, while a weird GPL cult preaches it as the one true path to “openness” and “freedom”. As someone who codes purely for fun, I like the dead-simple clarity of MIT and BSD: just keep the notice and license text, then do whatever the hell you want. No GPL bullshit or compliance headaches for me, permissive licenses like these keep my sanity intact.

Any problem with it?

That’s not my claim, this is what the chardet maintainers say.

What is happening with AOSP has nothing to do with the license. This project is not being developed by the community, but by Google for Google’s money, and Google can do whatever it wants with it. It’s silly to be offended by this. Anyone who is dissatisfied can fork the project and do whatever they want with it, if they can manage *(well, no, without Google’s resources, this is of course unrealistic).

I have a completely different view of what free means. xGPL are restrictive and sticky.

I have not made any claims, and I am not affiliated with this project in any way. I don’t know how this could be dealt with in court, or whether anyone will even bother with it.

Well, I do not have to, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

That’s a wild claim you’re making. So far, it looks like the code is completely new, and for this case, it doesn’t really matter where it comes from. New code - new license.

nope, here *GPL acts like cancer, once it touches something, it remains *GPL until the last bit of it is still there.

Well, I do not get his point, the code has been completely rewritten. Not to mention that the new license is much better than the old one.

hey, they said 2026 would be the year of linux on desktop.