• woelkchen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I don’t understand how AGPL allows Canonical to make and sell proprietary copies of this software without violating their license. That’s the only way your scenario could happen.

    The FSF made an FAQ page for a reason: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF

    “To release a nonfree program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times. […] the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a “violation” of the GPL.”

    Canonical read the FAQ, many people here didn’t.

    • thesmokingman
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Wow! I learned something. To return the favor, life would be better for you if you were less rude in the way you convey information.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        life would be better for you if you were less rude in the way you convey information.

        People making unsubstantiated claims are the rude ones, not the ones making factually correct statements without fluff.