So now that Eric S. Raymond confirmed GPLv2 is fucked, what license is safe?

So now that Eric S. Raymond confirmed GPLv2 is fucked, what license is safe?
Can GPLv3 be revoked retroactively? What about MIT? BSD? Apache? CDDL?

Attached: 2000px-GPLv3_Logo.svg-1.png (2000x994, 127K)

Other urls found in this thread:

opensource.org/licenses/ISC
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Why is this an actual issue?

You're right. Time to go back to closed source proprietary software.

We should really just go back to the old days where people just write code and SJW cunts are told to inhale a shotgun shell.

just make your own license lol

>go back
I'd say that is going forward

Linus once said in one of his presentations that the ISC license is really nice.

opensource.org/licenses/ISC

What makes it different from BSD or MIT though?

No idea. BSD is a bit more complicated since there are so many versions of it, and different clauses.

Some Linux developers are hypocrites or don't actually care about freedom of software. Let them die on their hill, they'll be effectively barred from contributing to FOSS from now on for fear of revoking or threatening to revoke their contributions yet again.

Ah I see. You are an idiot.

Now that is a reasonable answer. Thank you.

They're same by license terms, the point of ISC is that it is much shorter.

What did I miss?

So it's about "muh minimalism"

>Implying retroactive revocation is a bad thing.
It's only bad if all your projects are written by other people

what the fuck did I miss?
also, apache is best license

Unironically this.
You code commies had a good run and made a decent program or two but RMS didnt account for this edge case where codebases get destroyed by outside actors using the current political climate as a weapon.

Attached: 1536042874827.jpg (758x462, 70K)

imho opinion the MIT license looks fine; I use it for all my FOSS projects

People will gladly do it when M$, Applel, and Gulag pay them fat stacks to sabotage the project. Everyone has their price.
Face it, we need a new license.

Well it was picked by Openbsd for a reason.
It's not like MIT is that lenghty, but if you can have same thing in less words then why woldn't you want to

MIT is the only truly free license

LESS ATTACK SURFACE RIGHT?

...

get

fug

What about BSD? BSD license is similar.