Is it? Granted, I don’t know where OP is from, but in my country 18 doesn’t change much. High school for most ends when they’re 19 or 20, so life does speed up after that, but 18 doesn’t really change anything except being allowed to drive and drink alcohol (not at the same time).
Save me!
Could be. Though for me it was always about how you live:
Nope, that’s blatantly not true. I’m a middle class, I don’t think I’ll ever be rich. Sure, some people dream of being the next billionaires, but most of middle class doesn’t.
I take it you haven’t been to England, huh?
Eh, Ghanima literally means a spoils of war, I think a little bit of attachment is kinda better.
On your local system? In that case yeah, you might have fucked something up, if you for example replaced a root certificate authority or something.
I get that and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. This time it didn’t work for me.
You’re describing how pretty much every animal evolved alongside us.
Most animals leave us alone unless they feel we’re attacking them (which doesn’t always equal to what we consider attacking) or when really, really hungry.
All the animals that didn’t leave us alone died, so that’s why that characteristics was bred into almost everything around us.
One of the famous exceptions is polar bears who had virtually no exposure to humans historically, so they’ll happily kill you for fun.
Well, then it’s a half bad joke.
Way too long setup that IMO killed the joke. Plus C Bow = placebo.
Ah, found the edgy teenager.
That’ll show them! I’m gonna use a corporate mascot to show them I’m against corporations!
Fear is important for us. And your brain mostly prefers fear that can’t harm you.
For your first paragraph: yes, exactly. For software you distribute in binary form to customers, GPL and AGPL are effectively the same thing. For SaaS you can easily use GPL and not share your source code. Though beware if your ever need to deploy your SaaS on the customer’s premises.
The point of these licenses is to not restrict user’s rights, so LGPL doesn’t want you to use their code and not let the user do whatever they want with it according to LGPL. So if I create an app and decide to not maintain it, you’re still able to pull bug fixes etc. even without my involvement.
Yes, GPL effectively makes your binary GPL as well. And if you provide a library for others using GPL code, projects using your library must be GPL-compatible as well.
But the point is that you cannot restrict the user’s rights, so if you distribute the source code you can choose a more permissive license (like MIT) for your code. That could in theory mean that if someone finds a replacement for your GPL dependency and remove it, they could release it under any MIT-compatible license (which is just about anything).
GPL dependencies are often avoided in companies because of its spreading nature where it makes everything it touches effectively GPL. And even if you write SaaS, if you’re B2B you’ll eventually land a bigger customer with strict software policies and you’ll have to deploy on customer’s servers, thus having to legally distribute the source code as well.
You don’t have to provide it automatically, but shall they ask for it, you have to deliver. And relying on the customer never asking is not the best business decision. See for example here: https://boehs.org/node/truth-social
And the millennial generation is truly millennial.
GPL = whenever you distribute software which contains GPL code or libraries, your code must also be distributed as GPL or compatible. V2 vs v3 differences are mostly in v3 clearing up some ambiguities.
AGPL = same as GPL, except it applies even if you simply provide your code as a network service
LGPL = same as GPL except it makes it possible to distribute closed source components (or with incompatible license) as long as the user is able to replace the LGPL libraries.
MIT = you can do whatever with the code
So, GPL only concerns you if you distribute your application as a binary to users, think like Photoshop or Microsoft Office. Your code is effectively GPL even if you don’t distribute it, but there’s no requirement to make the source available to everyone, only to those who you distribute the software to.
With AGPL even having the application accessible over the network is considered as distribution to users. You basically cannot have an effectively closed source application with AGPL.
LGPL is usually used with dynamically linked libraries where you can distribute your application easily as long as user can replace those. For example Qt is LGPL and you can sell your app without providing source code as long as the user can replace the Qt framework dll/so libraries.
And with MIT anything goes, you can use it in a closed source product, in fact of those four it’s the only one that allows you to have a truly closed source codebase.
As for how they’re compatible, the most strict license usually applies. All of these four are compatible to some degree, but you can’t simply take a GPL code into a MIT codebase and make it more permissive suddenly.
Your code can be MIT, but the original still is GPL. Meaning that when you distribute the application, it’s effectively GPL. Same with all license combinations.
As for why would you choose one or the other, it’s pretty much about how much you want your users to give back.
With GPL, you want any modifications to be able to be included in your project. With LGPL as well, but you’re not forcing people to open source their whole app, only direct modifications to your code. With AGPL you’re basically forcing everyone to open source their app if they use your project at all. With MIT you don’t care at all, you just give your code to the humanity to do whatever with it.
Time very much isn’t a human construct, it’s a physical existing thing.