I might have to rethink my stance on "#GPL all the way".
Due to the highly scriptable nature of the #FOSS static site generator that I'm building, site code (or even entire sites) may fall under copyleft, and that's not what I want. I've had a look at the #LGPL, but for my use case, it still sounds too strict. I'm also not keen on writing my own license exception, and I doubt it'd keep enough protections to make GPLing worthwhile in the first place. So I'm afraid #Apache 2.0 is my best bet?
Does the #GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt
I just realized we're missing a really big opportunity here. We should have an LLM trained on all-GPL code. And obviously, EVERYTHING it produces is licensed #GPL!
In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing
In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing
Does the #GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt
The General Public License (GPL) is unfortunately not suited for electronic devices and silicon chips in particular. We would like therefore to develop a GPL-compatible hardware licence.
Are you interested to submit a tender? Then do so by July 3: