GPL code can also be used for commercial and military use. What are you smoking where you think that is even remotely true? Genuinely asking. It feels like people on your side of the argument have all learned what you have from the same, ill informed source.
GPL impose that derivative work is GPL, not MIT. Indeed, a commercial and a military use could embed work under GPL licence, but I suppose to point ou which part is under GPL. Which is more complicated than MIT, that you could use and label under any licence you want.
I agree that it suppose that those organisations give a shit about law (clearly, they don’t), however a GPL infraction could be used against those organisation, next to other infractions for a trial and type of of actions.
If I’m a military supplier of nukes to the government, I can freely use GPL and there’s no legal issue with that. You cannot request the nuclear launch software or the guidance control software even if they use GPL licensed code within it. Why? Because they don’t distribute said code to the public. If you develop something for private use, and it never gets a public release there’s no obligation or requirement to release the source! This is especially true for a government contractor that only makes software for a single customer (the government).
I think we’re agreeing that your claim was nonsense at this point, but I still don’t understand where people get these strange ideas about how GPL stops commercial or military use outside of very specific and frankly niche ways. If this is your reason for preferring GPL, it’s poorly thought out.
In purely private (or internal) use—with no sales and no distribution—the software code may be modified and parts reused without requiring the source code to be released. For sales or distribution, the entire source code needs to be made available to end users, including any code changes and additions—in that case, copyleft is applied to ensure that end users retain the freedoms defined above.
GPL code can also be used for commercial and military use. What are you smoking where you think that is even remotely true? Genuinely asking. It feels like people on your side of the argument have all learned what you have from the same, ill informed source.
GPL impose that derivative work is GPL, not MIT. Indeed, a commercial and a military use could embed work under GPL licence, but I suppose to point ou which part is under GPL. Which is more complicated than MIT, that you could use and label under any licence you want.
I agree that it suppose that those organisations give a shit about law (clearly, they don’t), however a GPL infraction could be used against those organisation, next to other infractions for a trial and type of of actions.
If I’m a military supplier of nukes to the government, I can freely use GPL and there’s no legal issue with that. You cannot request the nuclear launch software or the guidance control software even if they use GPL licensed code within it. Why? Because they don’t distribute said code to the public. If you develop something for private use, and it never gets a public release there’s no obligation or requirement to release the source! This is especially true for a government contractor that only makes software for a single customer (the government).
I think we’re agreeing that your claim was nonsense at this point, but I still don’t understand where people get these strange ideas about how GPL stops commercial or military use outside of very specific and frankly niche ways. If this is your reason for preferring GPL, it’s poorly thought out.