LGPL is considered a compromise in the GNU community, not a solution.

"You don't own the source code. Everybody does"

It is based on the thinking, we put work into this code, now corporations can use them without any need for giving back anything.

I use MIT for my source code, if I am allowed.

Yes, however that does not dismiss the fact that it is designed to give the rights of the code to everyone, not just the author.

That distribution of power is reminiscent to socialist views.

The problem is that you have to ask each programmer of Linux kernel for allowance to change the license.

Yeah, exactly.

The kernel is LGPL, iirc. Not sure. That or the GNU make C compiler

Otherwise Linux wouldn't be used by big infrastructure.

My personal view is that copy-right and copy-left should not be infectious outside of the bounds of the IP

copy-centrist

I tend to use either BSD, CC (non-code stuff), MIT, or LGPL

MIT is good for school projects

I think everyone should use a license for the damages disclaimer.

That part is the most important for claimed damages or liability.

Ooof

CC is also infectious, or am I wrong?

I think it works like LGPL where if the content is modified, it is under the license or the authority of the IP owner.

CC-BY at least, I think.

BY only tells you to attribute

Not to use the same license.

sorry, yes, I meant the one with non-commercial clausel.

I think that only covers the act of profiting without authorization by the IP owner.

``The "non-commercial" option included in some Creative Commons licenses is controversial in definition,[37] as it is sometimes unclear what can be considered a non-commercial setting, and application, since its restrictions differ from the principles of open content promoted by other permissive licenses.[38] In 2014 Wikimedia Deutschland published a guide to using Creative Commons licenses as wiki pages for translations and as PDF.[39]``

🤔

didn't help much

thx wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license

I think you are right, you can choose your own license for modified work.

Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license (CC-BY-SA)

Sharealike is the key word

Microsoft's quotes in that Wikipedia page are 100% correct.

GPL-licensed code is useless in the commercial sector when dealing with IP rights as a business.

(Ignoring the hyperbole)

I still see GPL being very useful to scholastic work, as the goal of scholastic work is to educate, not profit.

Anything outside of that and hobby work? nah.

https://tldrlegal.com/search?q=GPL

I honestly, dont think a lot about it. I simply take MIT, if I can. Otherwise I have to ask my employer.

Here's a helpful tool for gauging summarizations from all well-known and / or used licenses.

There's another one I can't remember which lists which licenses are compatible for a specific license.