• TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      103
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

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

    • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months 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
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months 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
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months 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
          ·
          2 months 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