orcishgamer: Given that the vast majority of all code lacks quality, including stuff that doesn't include any GPLed code, and given that there's plenty of high quality GPL projects I'm not sure why it follows that the GPL causes poor quality code.
It doesn't, correlation is not causation.
orcishgamer: I didn't say you did or even should. My statement applied to all FOSS licenses, if one cannot comply one simply shouldn't use it.
Well duh.
orcishgamer: You were trying to do something cool/good and I can see how that would be terribly frustrating. Yes, at this level you have to know quite a bit about how the Linux kernel operates and how drivers get used to properly comply with the GPL. Here's kind of a gold standard for beginning to understand this (if you even want to, or for others that do):
http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735 I wasn't trying to do anything you pompous git, it wasn't my project, I had nothing to do with it.
orcishgamer: Having said that there are various ways to get around this and to be clear, a program interacting with Linux or other GPLed code using normal, system calls (or via pipes, sockets, exposed services, etc.) is NOT a derived work. However if a non-compatibly licensed component somehow operates in the same executable (compiled into one program) it is. If it runs in the same memory space it may or may not be, with a strong dose of "probably", though some kernel modules are so ignorant of anything to with Linux that they are not considered a derivative work.
All of this is fairly confusing and, frankly, is about the worst the GPL has been able to serve up over the years, (imo at least). However, deploying an application on Linux doesn't make it a derivative work and many people do that every day without having any huge headaches. People writing applications that are so low level that they are "intertwined" with the kernel clearly are, and since they're benefiting, should they wish to redistribute, should consider themselves beholden to the terms of the GPL.
Once again, in your eagerness to be an arrogant smug git, you've completely missed the point. I'm really not sure why you're telling me this at any rate, perhaps you should be redundantly reiterating this to the Linux kernel developer that contacted the project, or the project's author. Either way, the point is that the GPL was abused to shut down a harmless project, an act which had no quantitative benefit for the community.
The issue was related to propriety drivers which were developed by nVidia and ATi, being distributed in a package that also contained the Linux Kernel. Perhaps you should apprise yourself fully of the situation before pompously pseudo-decreeing redundant information.
orcishgamer: But to put it in perspective, you didn't get screwed just because you were using the GPL, you got screwed because you were using the GPL and incompatible licenses, you didn't create either of these core components and you're pretty much stuck adhering to the licenses of their respective copyright holders at that point.
To put it into perspective, I didn't get screwed at all.
orcishgamer: Don't get me wrong, I'd trade the GPL in a heartbeat for the complete abolition of all copyright. In the meantime, the GPL is a good compromise.
So let me get this straight, you'd prefer public domain (for which there is a lot of code dedicated to), but since copyright exists, you prefer the GPL? What is the GPL a good compromise for?
orcishgamer: It has everything to do with freedom, you're simply valuing the freedom of the individual over the freedom of everyone.
No, it has everything to do with enforcing the the sharing of code, it is a direct anti-thesis to proprietary software, that has nothing to do with freedom, individual or otherwise (not that there is such a thing as otherwise).
orcishgamer: At any rate, not all my projects are GPLed (most are Apache-style) but I'm still glad for the GPL, we wouldn't have nearly the toys and great stuff we have today with the culture it fostered.
Much of the great stuff out there isn't GPL licensed.
orcishgamer: Oh come on, other *nix did exist but the work the galvanized the structure of the internet for the past 2 decades has been overwhelmingly GPL based.
No.
orcishgamer: It's mere mental masturbation to debate whether BSD licensed stuff (or any other licensed stuff) would have stepped up to the plate without it. We simply don't know.
Considering much of the stuff we rely on isn't GPL licensed, I think we do know.
orcishgamer: We do know that the GPL did galvanize those folks into action and it did provide the overwhelming majority of what we see today.
No, they really didn't. Go learn the history of UNIX, and the internet.
God damn I hate evangelical zealots.
