beyond

Everyone can write a new version of the GPL.

The standard GPL permission statement explicitly clarifies that the license is "as published by the Free Software Foundation" so any later version of the license has to come from the FSF.

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

The reason for the "or later" clause is to allow the FSF to update the GPL in response to flaws that are discovered. The "or later" clause is controversial because it effectively allows the FSF to change the licensing terms of any software licensed under such a clause, and so some developers who don't trust the FSF with this authority omit this clause. Famously, Linux is licensed only under GPLv2 with no or-later option (Linus has been a vocal opponent of GPLv3)

You do realize the whole discussion is about what terms to use for differentiating between GPL-like “restrictive” licenses and BSD-like “permissive” ones? Saying that both are “conditional” really doesn’t help anyone.

That's fair, I suppose - but going back to the word restrictive, you could also frame the requirement for attribution as a "restriction."

DeVault suggests the term "reciprocal" at the end of his post. Another term often used is "share-alike." Both of these terms, I think, more accurately hint at the exact conditions of the grant without negatively framing it as a "restriction."

That's true of any free software license, and as far as I know most formerly-free fauxpen source projects were licensed under a permissive license, because the intent was to be "business friendly" open source projects.

In fact, copyleft actually has an advantage here; other members of the community can sell your work, but they are also required to respect the copyleft. Stronger copyleft licenses like the Affero GPL even protect against proprietarizing free software as a "cloud" service, but "business friendly" projects don't want it.

What word that doesn’t offend you should I use to describe this fact?

Conditional, as in you are free to incorporate the GPL code into your work on the condition that you preserve the freedoms downstream. By default you have no rights to distribute; the GPL does not take anything away, but it grants conditional rights. A restrictive license, like your proprietary EULA, would take away rights that the user would normally have.

Whether or not proprietary EULA's are enforceable is a matter of dispute; see Software user's rights (D. J. Bernstein). Regardless, as Bernstein notes, this default set of rights does not include distribution, which is governed by copyright law. Free software licenses such as the GPL are copyright licenses and grant limited rights of distribution. Note that even most "permissive" licenses are by definition conditional as they include at least the requirement for attribution.

It started 40 years ago, when a man was not allowed to fix his printer. We didn't have the word enshittification at the time but even then it was understood what happens when technology abuses its users in order to enrich its creators.

Common DeVault W

In my experience Intel graphics have better compatibility with Linux-libre. I'm unsure about Linux-libre on AMD; according to at least one report it requires firmware blobs, which I'd rather avoid.

(I'm aware that firmware blobs are unavoidable with modern-ish hardware but I'd prefer to avoid as many of them as possible)

I use a NovaCustom laptop. As far as I know these are the highest end laptops that work with a Linux-libre system. I was interested in the Framework 13 (which I think can accommodate a Linux-libre friendly wifi card) but it's too small for my tastes, however a Framework 16 with an Intel CPU would be ideal if/when it comes out, though.

I don't care about Linux. I care about freedom. It just so happens that the best free software operating systems are built on Linux, so that's what I use.

I use GNU Guix System on my desktop, laptop, and server machines. I use LineageOS on my mobile devices, although sometimes I wish I could use Mobian or even Guix System instead. I do have a Pinephone with Mobian but it's collecting dust and the battery is swollen so I can't use it anyway. I also have a router running OpenWRT.

I used to use Debian until 2019, Trisquel until 2014, and Ubuntu until 2010. When I was something of a kid I played around with a Knoppix live CD, which was my first taste of GNU/Linux.

Firstly, Captain Beyond is the name of a band that I'm fond of - although by far not my favorite one, ever.

However, it's also somewhat aspirational. "Captain" I define as the sort of leader as in the captains of Star Trek, someone who leads by example, who makes-it-so, takes care of their people and their "ship" so-to-speak. Someone who is more of a steward than a boss. Someone who is first and foremost in command of themselves. "Beyond" refers to the aspiration to go further and achieve great things.

As I said it's more aspirational than anything - I don't think I do a very good job of living up to that moniker most of the time.

Unfortunately, even though it is on GitHub, it is proprietary:

https://github.com/namidaco/namida/blob/main/LICENSE

FWIW I've been using purple-discord for several years (and made some contributions to it) and have yet to be banned.