2lup382_

> Therein is the great misunderstanding , the GPL was never written for 'companies' , it was and still is for the User.

I didn't say it was, but what it was written for and what it became since writing software has changed so radically are two different things. For example the kernel Linux used to be written primarily by hobbyist hackers, now it is in large part written by $MEGACORP.

> When no one is contributing to the GPL commons the options become more restricted. If one isnt a corp that can write their own library or a 10X coder that can bash it out on their own , leaves the users looking at proprietary solutions or restricted offerings with two tier licences.

Doesn't the progress of FreeBSD (and OpenBSD) fly in the face of that? It only gets better with age, adds new features, and manages to do so while being permissively licensed.

> For me it's either AGPLv3 or all rights reserved. I'm trending towards the latter now.

Then for you it was never about freedom and community, which were the two major goals the Free Software movement were founded on, it was about leveraging copyleft for income generation. Everyone needs to make a living, and that is totally fine, but when you say "Pretty sad from the free software movement's perspectice [sic]." what you really meant was "pretty sad from the perspective of using this license to generate income". Which, again, no judgement, it just changes the meaning of your post.

> used to have so much more leverage back then

And maybe that was required back then, and/or maybe it ended up being bad strategy in the long term. Leverage only gets you so far, especially in community and relationships.

> Just extremely low morale right now. Not sure if there's even a point to any of this anymore.

See I feel the exact opposite. As FOSS license choice matters less, now we can just focus on hacking. FreeBSD doing this is a great example of it.

I think GPL and copyleft in general is getting less and less relevant as time goes on. Looking at GPL specifically it relies on scarcity. The reason companies would agree to the terms of the GPL in the 1980s, 90s, and even 00s was if you wanted a good compiler, parser, kernel, or library you had only so many choices. There might have been only a few thousand people in the world capable of writing a mature compiler suite at some points. So if you're $MEGACORP you could either a) buy a proprietary compiler, b) pay for rarified (so expensive) talent to write your own, c) tolerate the terms imposed by the GPL. Most companies saw option "C" as the more cost effective one. Now there is a lot of computer science talent out there, so the price of option "B" goes way down. Why tolerate the GPL when I can hire any of the people laid off from Microsoft, Meta, Oracle, Amazon, come work for me, and all of them probably wrote a compiler in college and I get to own the code outright. Or, I can use FreeBSD, LLVM, whatever, and maybe there is a chance for $MEGACORP to contribute back, where in option "B" there is almost no chance. And this doesn't even take LLMs into consideration.

I just ate bacon

now my fingers are greasy

as i type this

Line 1

5 / 5

i(1) just(1) ate(1) bacon(2)

Line 2

7 / 7

now(1) my(1) fingers(2) are(1) greasy(2)

Line 3

5 / 5

as(1) i(1) type(2) this(1)

I might have greasy fingers but that ain't right

for it to align with the case the case would need to be as thick as the camera bump thus negating the entire point of a thin phone while introducing all the problems of a thin phone.

Their point still stands. A lot of us strive to NOT be in our cars, offices, or schools for extended periods.

Why make a worse product for a problem that can be solved by carrying your phone a different way, or not having your phone on you for a moment?