60
Cuck License (lemmy.nz)
submitted 58 minutes ago by MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Lydia_K@lemmy.world 10 points 40 minutes ago

It makes sense for government organizations, they use public money, therefore it should available to the public to do anything they want with it.

But I don't understand why small independent devs choose to use a license like this over the GPL.

[-] dtrain@lemmy.world 3 points 29 minutes ago

I’m out of the loop Is this topical?

[-] CallMeAl@piefed.world 10 points 22 minutes ago

This meme is coming on 30 years old in terms of content.

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 2 points 7 minutes ago

Pretty typical. Apple has been doing this for a long time now.

[-] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 40 minutes ago

How specific can licenses really get? Would it be possible to update the license on a version update of an existing library to for instance specifically forbid Fortune 1000 companies from using it, but everyone else can? It would be amazing to see these places get their tech stacks ripped out from under them, although of course many would just illegally use the code and never tell

[-] shrek_is_love@lemmy.ml 1 points 44 seconds ago* (last edited 25 seconds ago)

There's The Anti-Capitalist Software License (ACSL) which is even more strict. Software under the ACSL can only be used by individuals, nonprofits, educational institutions, and worker-owned companies.

[-] Shadow@lemmy.ca 1 points 14 minutes ago

They would just fork it at that version. Licenses aren't retroactive.

[-] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 minutes ago

Yeah, but realistically these companies just pull new versions to overcome CVE blockers, and don't have the resources to fork and maintain

[-] evujumenuk@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago

Thanks to the wonders of capitalism, a bunch of businesses that would have to yield to tyrannical open source devs and their goody-two-shoes mentality can pool their bargaining power and each pay a little to a benevolent clean room reimplementer of security fixes.

Or, they can vendor the library and ask Claude to fix it in-tree 🤷

[-] jollyrogue@lemmy.ml 1 points 15 minutes ago

It’s possible. “GPLv2+” code picked up the new terms when GPLv3 was released, and if GPLv4 is ever released, the v4 terms will also apply.

This is why the Linux kernel specifies GPLv2. Not v2+, only v2.

[-] evujumenuk@lemmy.world 1 points 15 minutes ago

You can relicense code. Though that doesn't mean that you can take anything away. You just open another avenue for people to use what you wrote and developed, and any old license still exists and retains validity; the way you can curtail rights is by not granting liberal terms on newly created code.

This is how macOS switched to zsh, and left all GNU code in it to rot.

[-] YourBestFriend@quokk.au 4 points 54 minutes ago

Real developers use the UNLICENSE

this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2026
60 points (92.9% liked)

Linux

68666 readers
1329 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS