marauding_gibberish142

UFW syntax is easier. And it wraps nftables now which means I don't have to bother learning even more arcane syntax.

I hope I'll still be using the terminal when I'm 70 or something.

Not a jab at you OP, great work on your part. I'm just making a general comment towards my own predicted cognitive functioning

Again, it's not about the actual programs being simple. Just because they are simple in usage doesn't mean they should be encouraged to use a license that harms FOSS development. If we allow these "simple" utilities now, it sets the dangerous precedent for companies to push towards more software with such licenses and swipe FOSS advancements without contributing anything back. Corporations which do not contribute back to the FOSS community do not deserve to take anything from the community either.

Unfortunately, I alone am powerless to implement such measures when a large group of software developers decide to not take this into account when writing software.

I selected AGPL because I find it to be a little more strict compared to GPL. Any derivative of GPL is fine as long as it promotes open source development

If I could code at the level that these people do, I definitely would. If I ever publish anything that I've written for myself it will never be MIT/BSD licensed

Why do they not care? And why would they avoid GPL?

Then it's not one that is actively helping the FOSS community

Find me a car produced in 2024 or later which does this

Write their scripts without any GNU/uutils/whatever-microsoft-calls-their-evil-uutils-fork extensions. Then their scripts could run across all platforms, including GNU, uutils, FreeBSD and BusyBox

Sorry but that's besides the point. If improvements to coreutils are not published and upstreamed then the community loses out on potential improvements that trained personnel at a successful company make. Not being dependent on such utils is a different discussion and doesn't solve the core issue.

Yeah I'd like for them to use AGPL but even GPLv3 or it's derivatives are fine as long as they emphasise FOSS

If it is solely for investors, then I understand. However I'm saddened to think that altruism in software has gone to the gutter

Yes, publication of the source is enough. However, you are correct and I should have worded it better. In practice, publishing the source allows the developers of the software to make improvements unhindered by licensing and other IP-based hindrances which are otherwise present in closed-source software

The point is that even if companies have the personnel to contribute back, most of them don't. It simply isn't in their interest. If a project is good enough, AGPL will mean that no monopoly will form around that project and open standards will be maintained. AGPL is simply a bastion against closed-source software working against the best interests of consumers

At work, yes