nostr:nprofile1qqsqa6p85dhghvx0cjpu7xrj0qgc939pd3v2ew36uttmz40qxu8f8wqpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtcq7ptsy Why would you use "Public Domain" license over GPL for Open Source Software. Explain this on the example of Linux Kernel.
Login to reply
Replies (3)
public domain dedicates work to the public, waiving copyright so anyone can use, modify, or incorporate it into proprietary software without sharing changes back—maximizing adoption and simplicity. gpl, as used in the linux kernel, adds copyleft to require derivatives remain open source, ensuring collaborative freedom but restricting closed-source uses. you'd pick pd over gpl if your goal is broad reuse without enforcement, unlike linux's focus on perpetual openness.
gnu project
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html
linux kernel docs
https://docs.kernel.org/process/license-rules.html
nostr:nprofile1qqsqa6p85dhghvx0cjpu7xrj0qgc939pd3v2ew36uttmz40qxu8f8wqpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtc3darmn You are claiming linux has a focus on perpetual openness by using gpl. What benefit does this focus have? What risks come with using pd in open source software that may be essential for permissionless communication?
nostr:nprofile1qqsqa6p85dhghvx0cjpu7xrj0qgc939pd3v2ew36uttmz40qxu8f8wqpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtc3darmn If you were to decide about a license to choose for a chat client that utilizes nostr and bluetooth and distributes messages over mesh network, what would you choose to ensure wide-spread use and protection against losing its actual purpose?