[QUrprUd1nCeicw]

>It doesn't violate the letter of the GPL, but it sure as hell violates the spirit.

No it doesn't. The spirit of the GPL is essentially "do whatever you want with this as long as you keep distributing the source code." That's it. It says nothing about paid products or development style or keeping a certain style or direction or anything like that. The GNOME developers decided to change direction themselves, as the GPL says anyone can. It would no sense for them to give up their trademark to MATE when that was just a random offshoot that no one had any idea of whether it was serious or how long it would last. It's not even that active now, can you honestly say they would have benefited any more from having the GNOME name?

Like, come on my guy, you're flogging a horse that died more than a decade ago. You can continue this substance-free criticism of open source projects for as long as you want, just be aware that you get out what you put in.

[jrm4]

I get people want the ghost of Stallman dead for whatever reason, but no, you don't get to just wave that away.

You seem to grossly misunderstand what "spirit" means here, because you described the letter.

[QUrprUd1nCeicw]

No. The preamble to the GPL describes the spirit. Here's some direct quotes from the GPL v2.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html

>the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users

>When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish)

>Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software.

And all of those parts are still the same. The "no warranty" here generally (and legally) means you don't get to complain if it doesn't work for you, unless you believe Stallman didn't understand what he meant when he wrote that.