Music piracy will come make a comeback eventually. Its already coming back with movies.
Paying for music is in a blip of being better than piracy for most people and the “morally correct” argument is very dominent right now.
But the contradiction between consumers wanting cheap convinient music and streaming cites wanting as much money as possible can’t last like this forever.
It still is here!
I suppose so, but in that case either red or yellow is a primary colour not both. And since we are viewing this on an addative screen red is the primary colour.
Yellow isn’t a primary colour.
The current GNU coreutils have been C for decades, and I am not aware of an instance where this was a limiting factor. The GNU coreutils can still be bundled with proprietary software. Just like some Linux distributions used to come bundled with proprietary Nvidia drivers.
Can you possibly find an example where the Licensing the rust coreutils under the GPL would be an issue? Or actually any example at all of where using the GPL is a bad thing?
MIT License isn’t giving up Open Source, as all Open Source projects with MIT prove it.
I literally just described an example of it giving up open source. Any project under the MIT (https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat) license can become proprietary at any time and all development is no longer open source! How is my example of apple using FreeBSD without contributing not an example of giving up open source? If you would like I can find more examples. So far you havn’t given me any for your own evidence but I would like some so I can understand your argument better.
Also applogies for the late replies, I hope you don’t mind too much.
Oh okay thanks for the correction, I should revise my understanding of the difference between copyright and copyleft.
Because the license has other strengths as well.
What are it’s strengths?
So having an alternative that can be used easier in other software where GPL is a bit problematic is not a bad thing.
The GPL is only problematic when used alongside proprietary software, something we want to avoid. So far people have used the original coreutils for decades and it hasn’t been a problem.
If the GNU+linux operating software shifts towards a permissive license (like MIT) it makes way for companies such as Red Hat and Canonical to start making proprietary operating systems. This would be a massive shame to Linux since the whole community benefits a lot from their contributions.
And the MIT License isn’t giving up on more Open Source too. So there is an opportunity.
I described earlier exactly why the MIT license is giving up on open source software so allow me to repeat myself.
Think about comparing macos with aosp.
Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.
Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.
Not using the GPL can result in less open source.
OK sure, but why should we give away an opportunity to get more open source software?
Not nessesarily think about comparing macos with aosp.
Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.
Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.
Not using the GPL can result in less open source.
I argue that using MIT will mostly result in a worse outcome than the GPL since our goal should always be having as much FOSS software as possible. Allowing people to make proprietry software from open source software results in less open source software.
No. I’m talking about the free software foundations definition of free software. The mit license is an open source licence, not a free software license.
Anyway, I’m interested as to why you don’t think the MIT license is worse than the GPL.
Because it isn’t a free software license. Software licensed by the MIT license can be copied and made into proprietary software. Since (I hope) we agree proprietary software should be minimised licensing under a free software license ensures big tech can’t make there own corporate software from it without ever giving back.
Why don’t you think the MIT license is bad?
I didn’t know memory was ever encrypted. I mean why would it be?
Chinese capitalists are still capitalists.
The rtx 3060 is a fine gpu in 2026. Can it play modern aaa games in 4k ultra setting? No. But people just want cheap gpu’s back no one wants to pay half a grand for an entry level card.
Im still gaming on a 3060 and can even the most modern games at 1080p low/med settings.
Nah I’ll keep my 100 mb and ego thank you very much!
it is bloat. also were is your package for (insert any very obscure program). I guess your going to have to rely on appimages or building from source for this one!
I feel like there are so many people here who have never used BSD and are just vibe commenting.
People have definitely noticed that with movies. But music streaming is pretty good with having 99% of what most people need and songs don’t just dissapear nearly as often, we’ll see how that changes though.