curprev17:1417:14, 24 June 2024 2a02:587:350b:9700:f968:bf76:866c:43f9talk 24,150 bytes−1,901 Correct me if I'm wrong, but this section does not seem to be relevant in here, since it only represents a handful of people. The term was popularized on 4chan and Luke Smith is known for mixing hate speech with his albeit fair and correct libre software points. I don't think the term "Cuck Licenses" is professional nor does it enhance the point of this article, which is already quiet clear.undoTag: section blanking
curprev03:2603:26, 6 July 2023 Fragglettalkcontribs 25,907 bytes−6 "allows relicensing" is incorrect and a common misconception; the texts of BSD, MIT etc. licenses grant no such right. Compare with eg. https://lwn.net/Articles/247872/undoTags: Mobile editMobile web edit
curprev23:2723:27, 9 August 2022 Aoidhtalkcontribs 25,930 bytes+38 Undid revision 1103505919 by Grufo (talk) Failed verification doesn't mean the link doesn't work (that's deadlink) but that the reference doesn't support the content. The source says nothing about developers coining the term.undoTag: Undo
curprev16:0016:00, 28 May 2022 2800:810:5e4:82e4:d5ef:5781:f24d:60fftalk 22,776 bytes+560 The GNU All-permissive License is irrelevant, it's not used at all. As stated in MIT Licence: "As of 2020, the MIT License was the most popular software license found in one analysis, continuing from reports in 2015 that the MIT License was the most popular software license on GitHub." Therefor it's more sense show the MIT License as an example.undoTag: references removed