He imagines a simple yearly compliance process that gets companies all the rights they need to use Post-Open software. And they'd fund developers who would be encouraged to write software that's usable by the common person, as opposed to technical experts.

It's an interesting concept, but I don't really see any feasible means to get this to kick off.

What are your thoughts on it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] library_napper@monyet.cc 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What loophole? I think they're just blatantly violating it

[–] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

They're still providing the code for people who buy the compiled software. And they are not restricting their ability to redistribute that code. So it's still compliant with the GPL in the letter. However, if you redistribute it, they'll refuse to service you further versions of the software.

It's clearly a loophole because they can argue "ackshyually, we didn't restrict you, we just don't want further businesses with you, see ya sucker".

[–] randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 10 months ago

Enshittification continues

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Is there a court case about this already? Because that's clearly not the intention of the GPL.

[–] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't think that there is one yet, otherwise it would get famous. Not sure though.