Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "Open Source is not Socialism (or Communism)" video.

@typingcat No, that's both. If you write something new that doesn't modify existing GPL code, you really do get to choose the license. Realistically, if you never modify existing projects that have that viral license, then no one can ever force you to use that license.
5
Well, he didn't get rich off of others contributions, he got rich because he was talented and companies hired him to continue his work which helped the community. His management of the project, guiding it towards a particular goal, made Linux what it is. Without him, it's likely that none of the other contributors would have mattered, or if they did it would've been for a less significant work. I wonder if open source would be what it is today if not for his project and the popularity that it gained. Certainly GNU didn't help the cause and their kernel still isn't a thing.
3
@yellingintothewind I disagree wholeheartedly. They took over everything that existed back then because they had a viral license. Contributions came from outside of GNU, but got sucked in.
3
@yellingintothewind You might not understand the way I mean that, but projects that were started elsewhere and funded either by the developer or someone else ended up getting pulled in because of the viral license. It wasn't like they just slapped it on, but they manipulated people into using it. It can be hard to quantify such subtle manipulations, but think of how an abuser acts and you get an idea.
3
I've been saying this for years, but it looks like you're one of the few who agree with me.
3
Don't modify GPL code then. I intentionally choose not to because the license is a virus and I wish it would be replaced in the community with either the BSD or MIT licenses. However, if you write something new that isn't a modification of existing GPL code, then you do indeed get to choose the license.
2
@drownthepoor I knew people wouldn't understand the point, but let's see if I can rephrase it so it's easier to understand. GNU then was basically the equivalent to the Rust Foundation now. They manipulate people in some subtle, and some not-so-subtle ways to get them to use the GPL, not that I'm saying the Rust Foundation wants people to use the GPL, but using their rewrite everything in Rust objective as a contrasting point. Once a project is stamped with the GPL, you can't just do whatever you want with it willy-nilly. Had the license of choice been BSD, MIT or some other non-restrictive license, or had they not gone after people with rabid lawyers, then things would be drastically different. Most would argue that the difference would be that nothing would be open source, I posit the exact opposite that we'd have a wealth of open source. Of course, people that are fully inculcated in the cult won't ever agree with me, like Rustaceans won't ever agree that Rust is the wrong choice. And more pointedly you won't see my response because YouTube will likely filter such a long response when I have neither clicked like nor dislike on your post. I guess we'll see in a day or so, or 5 months if I can expect a similar response time.
1
@drownthepoor I don't mean when building against libraries actually. I suppose their manipulations are so subtle that hardly no one can see it, but you'd be right in saying that they don't force anyone to use a particular license. If I had thought the propaganda would have done this much damage I would've been taking better note of examples throughout the years. I suppose it's too late now because the damage has been done and we're worse off for it. I'm only one person, so even though I see history repeating itself with Rust, I can't do anything about that either.
1
@drownthepoor You're describing one particular license. Look into BSD and MIT.
1