<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>jordigh</author><text>My, how the tides have changed.&lt;p&gt;Those of us old enough to remember, the landscape looked a lot different 15 years ago. There was optimism, there was a desire to install Linux on everything possible, and the GPL was the default license for most new free software that was getting written.&lt;p&gt;It was not without strife. Since 1998, people like esr have been saying how the GPL is passé and is no longer needed because open source won, because open source was superior, because companies would naturally want to share their source code. Nobody needed anymore to be coerced into respecting user freedoms. Then the corporations started to take note and through their clout, they have convinced their employees that nothing is worse than keeping code free. Only unimportant scraps of code can be free, but the real code must remain secret, restricted, proprietary. AGPL is the ultimate evil to be avoided at all costs.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t like this shift. I miss the Slashdot days. I miss the jokes about installing Linux on dead badgers. I wish we had a collective desire to do something about the most widely deployed proprietary software controlling our lives in the pocket computers so many of us carry around with us. We haven&amp;#x27;t won. The code is locked up, the spying is worse than ever, and the corporations are winning. They even influence the direction of Linux, actively trying to subvert GPL compliance efforts such as the VMWare GPL lawsuit by pulling Conservancy&amp;#x27;s funding.&lt;p&gt;The GPL is a much-needed defence. Software controls ever more things of the internet. We need to bring back the rebellious attitude of the late 90s and early 00s. Linux needs to be installed on &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; of your phone, down to the radio firmware (and the dead badger).</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The Linux Foundation: Not a Friend of Desktop Linux, the GPL, or Openness</title><url>http://fossforce.com/2017/04/lin-desktop-linux-gpl-openness/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>jlgaddis</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t know enough about this to take sides but I do think that the author of this piece is being a bit misleading on at least one point. This piece says:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;... Greg Olson [referred] to the GPL and other copyleft licenses as “Restrictive Licenses” and “viral.”&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;The original article, which he then quoted, reads:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;These licenses are often termed ‘viral’ because ...&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;So, while Mr. Olson &lt;i&gt;did&lt;/i&gt; use the term &amp;quot;viral&amp;quot; in his piece, &lt;i&gt;he&lt;/i&gt; didn&amp;#x27;t specifically call them &amp;quot;viral&amp;quot;. Instead, he said, quite literally, that &amp;quot;these licenses are often termed &amp;#x27;viral&amp;#x27;&amp;quot; (and they are).&lt;p&gt;Anyways, the open source world has been having this argument forever -- often in the form of whether the BSD v. GPL is more &amp;quot;free&amp;quot; -- and it all depends on whose point of view you&amp;#x27;re looking at it from (the developer&amp;#x27;s or the user&amp;#x27;s).</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The Linux Foundation: Not a Friend of Desktop Linux, the GPL, or Openness</title><url>http://fossforce.com/2017/04/lin-desktop-linux-gpl-openness/</url></story>