I agree regarding consesus. Unlikely, but: heaving major contributions greenlighted and only replace parts of the code are fat note feasible.

No communication happened to my understanding at any point with any contributor.

And that’s fine. And everybody should license his code as he likes.

But my point stands. String copyleft is important.

That does not mean that LGPL is always a good idea, and charted is a good example, as the python stdlib is MIT licensed, and therefore an LGPL charted has no chance of getting accepted.

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.

I did contribute once. And it was a pain. 20 lines of code but hours of work, Mailinglists, feedback, …

Don’t het me wrong , it was fun. But would I have done the same for BSD, so that apple could use this? Hell no

Did you contribute to the kernel? Because, I for sure have a problem with it. And I did contribute.

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

This one is so stupid, I had to think how to respond.

Why? What prevents anybody to implement a new Compiler, looking at LLVM … ?

What we would have are closed source gcc forks, that is not freedom. This is the opposite.

I am old enough to remember buying a fucking Borland license

I work on gcc code, I know how ugly, historic in parts and confusing the Codebase can be. But I also know why. LLVM has no such legacy, and this is a good thing. I believe some day LLVM will replace gcc because of that. And LLVM uses Apache 2.0.

So, what exactly was your argument here?

Look at the number of MIT projects with such founding and contributions. Compare them to copy left projects.

What you will find is, that copy left projects have far more backing, financial support and contributions.

There are studies on this…

Qnd to keep Microsoft as an example. If the kernel would be permissive, what would Microsoft stop from using it, adding some property stuff on it and use their monopoly to force those feature everywhere.

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

This is naive. Very naive.

We would not have such a huge Linux infrastructure and support for all those different components without GPL.

Every modern car uses Linux. I repeat, one of the most locked down industries uses Linux on custom hardware on millions of cars.

Indeed, very limiting.

Or, gcc, the Compiler everybody uses to build Linux stuff and the kernel? This is a direct GNU project. Without GPL and the requirements to provide changes, we would have thousands of gcc based, closed source compilers. Most likely expensive to, to build optimized arm code and other stuff.

But, feel free to protest the usage of GPL by not using any GPL licensed software.

Ok, maybe explain the restrictions that offend you so much?