• Steve Dice@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        That’s false. Derivative software that doesn’t use the BSD licence has no bearing on the BSD-licenced software itself. For example, Sony using FreeBSD for the PS3 operating system has zero impact on the freedom of a FreeBSD user. The GPL, on the other hand, directly infringes on the user’s freedom to fork and redistribute the software.

        • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          The only “freedom” the GPL infringes on is the ability to take the freedom the code originally had away from an end-user.

          • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 days ago

            That’s also false. The GPL doesn’t only restrict non-free licences, it restricts any licence change on the derivative work. If I fork a GPL project and want to redistribute my changes with a free licence such as MIT, the GPL will prevent it to protect itself. It’s an authoritarian licence that doesn’t respect your freedom.

            • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              8 days ago

              I fail to see how the share-alike nature of the GPL is “authoritarian” and “doesn’t respect your freedom”.

              It is built to guarantee the freedom of the user. It’s imperfect, as it has to work within the constraints of the copyright system, but it’s a hell of a lot better than licenses like MIT for propagating freedom to end users.

              Here’s a real world example:

              If I want to root my android device with KernelSU or build a custom ROM, I need to recompile the heavily customised kernel built by the vendor for my specific device. Because Linux (the kernel of android) is under the GPL, the manufacturer is compelled to give the user the same freedoms that were given to them, which means I can download the source code and do this.

              If Android were based on, say, the FreeBSD kernel instead, this would be impossible. There would be very few, if any, android custom ROMs, because the vendor could, and would, withhold the modifications they made to the kernel.

              • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 days ago

                You’re again assuming that the GPL only restricts non-free licences. This is not the case. If I add a feature to a piece of GPL software, I can’t use BSD on my new code even though the new code isn’t derivative work. Hell, if I write a completely independent piece of software that links to GPL software, my new software has to be GPL even though not a single line of GPL code was used. All of this also applies to free licences like BSD. The GPL doesn’t protect freedom, it protects itself.

                • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 days ago

                  You’re assuming that the GPL protecting freedom and protecting itself are mutually exclusive. They aren’t. Again, the GPL is written to ensure the code remains free forever.

                  Also, I’ve already pointed out the flawed nature of licenses like MIT and BSD, and if the GPL could be relicensed to them, it would provide a very easy way for proprietary developers to strip the freedom from the GPLed code when passing a derivative on to their users.

                  It is unfortunate that it cannot be relicensed to other copyleft licenses, as that would not pose such a problem, but without an explicit list of licenses it can be relicensed to I’m not sure that’s even legally possible under copyright.

  • vaguerant@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    As long as we’re filling out our fantasy browser brackets, I’m hoping that the Servo engine and browser/s can become viable. Servo was started at Mozilla as a web rendering engine only, before they laid off the whole team and the Linux Foundation took over the project. Basically revived from the dead in 2023, the current project is working on an engine and a demonstration browser that uses it. It’s years away from being a usable replacement for current browsers and the engine is certainly the main project. A separate browser which employs Servo as its engine is a more likely future than an actual Servo browser.

    Still, you can download a demo build of the official browser from the web site. Currently, it’s only usable for very simple web sites. Even Lemmy/Mbin display is a little broken, and I think of those as fairly basic. YouTube is out of the question. One of the sites that’s been used to demonstrate its capability to render web pages is the web site for Space Jam (1996) if that gives you any idea of its current state.

    The original 1996 Space Jam web site, running in the Servo demo browser.