GPL specifically tries to protect the intention of the original authors that the software be available without burden to the end users. It doesn’t give a rat’s tail to anything else. The end user must be able to access and build and modify and use the source code.
MIT, BSD, Boost, etc. are concerned with the software being used by middlemen without burden, but you can fuck the end user. You can fuck the original authors, etc.
You are thinking of protecting software as the be-all-end-all goal of any license. It’s not true for GPL and several other licenses. They are trying to protect the end user.
If a product you’re using hits a big/corner case frequently and it uses GPL code, just patch and reap the benefits.
TLDR: GPL is communist and MIT, BSD, etc. are capitalist.
GPL specifically tries to protect the intention of the original authors that the software be available without burden to the end users. It doesn’t give a rat’s tail to anything else. The end user must be able to access and build and modify and use the source code.
MIT, BSD, Boost, etc. are concerned with the software being used by middlemen without burden, but you can fuck the end user. You can fuck the original authors, etc.
You are thinking of protecting software as the be-all-end-all goal of any license. It’s not true for GPL and several other licenses. They are trying to protect the end user.
If a product you’re using hits a big/corner case frequently and it uses GPL code, just patch and reap the benefits.
TLDR: GPL is communist and MIT, BSD, etc. are capitalist.