Yet the GPL is routinely cited as an open source license by proponents of that movement, essentially taking credit for work that nobody in that movement did.
I don't think so. The GPL is an open-source license, by the simple definition of open source. It goes further than many open-source licenses, yes, but that does not change the fact.
What we really have here is yet another expression of the general resentment that RMS and his groupies feel about not getting enough credit. (See also "GNU/Linux".)
The problem, if you want to call it that, is that RMS (accidentally?) granted recipients of GPL'd software another freedom: the freedom to avoid giving credit to others.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so. The GPL is an open-source license, by the simple definition of open source. It goes further than many open-source licenses, yes, but that does not change the fact.
What we really have here is yet another expression of the general resentment that RMS and his groupies feel about not getting enough credit. (See also "GNU/Linux".)
The problem, if you want to call it that, is that RMS (accidentally?) granted recipients of GPL'd software another freedom: the freedom to avoid giving credit to others.
Ain't freedom great?