Free Software Foundation partnership

Hello all!
Why don’t share code usage with latest GPL and provide positive installation experience with any stable Linux distribution?

The GPL is the crappiest of all free licenses to use as it is highly “contagious” and it basically limits what people can do with any source code. The GPL is a restrictive license as you’re required to release your modifications if you want to publish your product. That means that the GPL is shunned by many commercial entities.
There are many better open source licenses that don’t restrict what people can do with the code. Licenses that will allow companies to use code in closed-source projects without any problems. This tends to work just fine as it doesn’t force people to release their modifications, yet many still want to share their modifications and you have real free software.
The GPL is not free, simply because it has a major restriction. This world would be better off without the GPL. Other free licenses existed long before the GPL and worked just fine. And they’re still better.

This is way to harsh. GPL can actually be good if you want any contributions to stay open source. You can ship proprietary software that uses GPL libs and software. All major companies do it.
You can also licence different parts of an application seperatly. Say you licence the core libs a Remote Desktop app is based on as MIT but GPL the front end so to make people aren’t selling an open source project.

A GPU texture compression algorithm is a good example of what GPL might be good for as well.

Why would a GPU Texture compression algorithm be better if it’s GPL instead of MIT, BSD or any other open source license? It’s actually worse, as I would not be able to use that algorithm while keeping my source closed. I would thus not use it, nor allow any code in my projects that would use it, simply because it’s GPL. It adds restrictions I don’t want!
If the same algorithm is published with an MIT or BSD license then it is far more useful to me as I can still create closed-source projects.
Yes, you can still create proprietary software if you’re willing to take a few hurdles, depending on the GPL version that applies. You’d generally need to wrap GPL code inside your own separate modules that would thus become GPL, but because they are your own modules, you can ignore the GPL for anything built on your own modules. But this is way too troublesome.
I’m thinking about how the Berkeley Sockets libraries have become the backbone of the Internet. This was only possible because this library uses a BSD license and thus has no restrictions, except for proper attribution. This is the kind of open source that this world needs! One with no restrictions.

Yes you could use the algorithm in a closed source project or driver. IDK why you think you couldn’t.

You can ship GPL libs with any closed source proj. You just have to post the licence in the read-me / about just like Sony does with many of there devices and provide modified version on request. Just boot up PS4, Vita etc and you can see for yourself the GPL software they use. In fact RaspberryPi ARM6 devices got their Mono HardFloat support from Sony GPL requests used by PSM for Vita.

Closed source licences for algorithms cause lots of harm in the industry from my experience. Take a look at the early days of Android GPU / GLES drivers or even ATI vs Nvidia. Its was a nightmare caused from proprietary texture compression algorithms behind royalties. Thank god for " ASTC Texture Compression", ETC2, etc. Sometimes there is just a “best way” to do something and artificially limiting the use of that method harms all other products that could otherwise rely on it. The short term profits from royalties that benefit a very few in algorithms have long term negatives for the majority.

I agree MIT, BSD, etc are better for many things but don’t agree with your take on GPL2 for example.

If I put GPL code in my project then I cannot publish that code as closed source or proprietary. If I use any BSD code, I can publish my work as long as I add attribution to the original author. That’s the main difference. The GPL adds a nasty restriction to what I can do with the open source, which I think is bad.
And why are you bringing up closed source algorithms? I’m focusing on open source NON-GPL algorithms, which will allow me to do a lot more with them.
I will not support GPL because it’s almost as bad as closed source. It adds limitations and restrictions. To me, the GPL isn’t free. It’s a bad licensing system that forces the will of the few over the many.

.NET Foundation Website | Blog | Projects | Code of Conduct