• TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        98
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        It means it can’t ever become proprietary closed-source software (not without a major lawsuit).

        • ambitiousslab@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          51
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Any new open source software is always a net positive.

          But, there are a few small caveats to the way they’ve done it (depending on how cynical/cautious you are):

          • Because Proton are not accepting contributions, they own all the copyright, so can make the code closed source again if they want to (that wouldn’t affect the already released versions, but future versions)
          • They could likely take down any derivative on iOS, since Apple will always take instruction from the copyright holder, for GPL’d code
          • Since the builds are not reproducible, there’s no guarantee that the binaries they distribute are built from the source code
        • Quail4789@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’d expect free software people to not have the funds to sue corporations. Are there any examples of these major lawsuits I can take a look at? I do remember a telecom company in France was fined quite a large sum but that was reported as a rare incident.

      • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s pretty much not reversible and the code is free to use, modify, and distribute forever. And if you do modify it you also must make those changes open source.

        Very good news

      • Mwa@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 days ago

        gpl v3 you can do pretty much anything but you have to put it the same license but it has like drm protections and Anti-Tivoization and also has some patent protections people find this license too strict

        • delirious_owl@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Its actually more restrictive, in a good way.

          You can’t, for example, fork it, make changes, and sell that derivative software without releasing the source code

          • Mwa@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            yeah but drm is too strict for some people and anti tivozation this is why linux did not do gpl 3.0 or later

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Why the but? GPL 3 is the correct license to use for open source projects to ensure they stay open and corps don’t freeload on them.

      • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        English isn’t my first language. I share your opinion regarding the license. Which connector would you use instead of “but” to indicate that you succeeded in your efforts even though it was harder you thought it would be?

        • 0ops@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          English is my only language, and yours looks fine to me. I thought it was pretty clear from the first comment that the “but” indicated success despite difficulties, and as you clarified that’s exactly what you meant.

        • delirious_owl@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          “and”

          If you study non violent communication, folks will say to avoid using “I agree with you, but”. Because as soon as you say " but ", people get defensive and stop listening to you.

          Whenever possible, replace “but” with “and” if the sentence still has the same meaning

          • pooberbee (any)@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            This was not a case of “I agree with you, but…”, though. “But” is perfectly appropriate here to contrast between the first statement and the second.