"No right to relicense this project" - on changing the license of Mark Pilgrim's chardet from LGPL to MIT after a vibe-coded rewrite
https://lemmy.ml/post/44059976
"No right to relicense this project" - on changing the license of Mark Pilgrim's chardet from LGPL to MIT after a vibe-coded rewrite - Lemmy
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/44059967
[https://lemmy.ml/post/44059967] > for those not familiar with Mark Pilgrim
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pilgrim], he is/was a prolific author,
blogger, and hacker who abruptly disappeared from the internet in 2011. > >
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/968527
[https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/968527] > > > HN comments
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47259177]
Isn’t the LGPL supposed to be relicensable as opposed to GPL’s share-alike?
nope, here *GPL acts like cancer, once it touches something, it remains *GPL until the last bit of it is still there.
Cancer is a bad analogy. It’s more like antibodies against non-free bactetia :)
I have a completely different view of what free means. xGPL are restrictive and sticky.
Ok, maybe explain the restrictions that offend you so much?
GPL licenses are straight-up cancer, they force every derivative or linked project to adopt their viral copyleft rules, nuking proprietary reuse or easy mixing with other codebases, while a weird GPL cult preaches it as the one true path to “openness” and “freedom”. As someone who codes purely for fun, I like the dead-simple clarity of MIT and BSD: just keep the notice and license text, then do whatever the hell you want. No GPL bullshit or compliance headaches for me, permissive licenses like these keep my sanity intact.
That’s… The point of the GPL licenses, to preserve copyleft. I also prefer the simplicity of the MIT license for my own works, but I respect the copyleft ideals.
Arthur Besse
Goodlucksil
hobata
tabular