3 ms·

> IMO nobody can impose restrictions to your MIT licensed code Not to you, but to your users. If you don't care about your users' well-being, well... > use th

by jordigh 11y ago

> IMO nobody can impose restrictions to your MIT licensed code Not to you, but to your users. If you don't care about your users' well-being, well... > use the code to create a commercial product I wish people who oppose the AGPL didn't see mistreating their customers as the only way of being commercial. There are several examples of commercial AGPL software. Yes, hiding the source code and forbidding them from copying the source code is mistreating them. If you are not doing anything wrong, then why are you hiding the source code? When software is naturally copyable, why are you denying them this natural right? > Both this more or less guarantees you get no patches back to your open source project There are also plenty of examples of copylefted projects getting even more patches than corresponding non-copylefted projects. There's a popular kernel called Linux that is copylefted and gets tons of industry-backed patches. People have been using that bugbear for as long as copyleft has existed. Mailpile got that threat when it switched to AGPL-only and so far its contributions haven't slowed down.

reitanqild 11y ago
> Not to you, but to your users. If you don't care about your users' well-being, well... They can still use my MIT licensed code which gives my user more rights than AGPL ever will. > Yes, hiding the source code and forbidding them from copying the source code is mistreating them. Now you are arguing against closed-source, not liberal open source licenses. > There's a popular kernel called Linux that is copylefted and gets tons of industry-backed patches. Note that you can use Linux on your server without announcing it to everyonce who acesses it. Also another reason for why patches are submitted are because industry hope their patches will be mainlined so there will be less maintenance. That said, GPL has worked well for the Linux kernel, possibly better than BSD. (I'm mostly arguin against AGPL.) > Mailpile got that threat when it switched to AGPL-only and so far its contributions haven't slowed down. Now that is interesting.
- jordigh 11y ago
  > Now you are arguing against closed-source, not liberal open source licenses. Non-copyleft licenses provide no protection against proprietary derivatives. If you have no objection to proprietary derivatives, then I think that's a weak stance to take. It means you don't care if your users can be given your software but without the rights that you intended them to have, because someone between you and your users can always take that right away. While your users might come back to you to get the same software with the same rights you intended them to have, they might not be aware of this, or they might not want your software alone, but together with whatever else was built on top of it, which they cannot get under your original permissive terms anymore.

by jordigh 11y ago

reitanqild 11y ago

> Not to you, but to your users. If you don't care about your users' well-being, well... They can still use my MIT licensed code which gives my user more rights than AGPL ever will. > Yes, hiding the source code and forbidding them from copying the source code is mistreating them. Now you are arguing against closed-source, not liberal open source licenses. > There's a popular kernel called Linux that is copylefted and gets tons of industry-backed patches. Note that you can use Linux on your server without announcing it to everyonce who acesses it. Also another reason for why patches are submitted are because industry hope their patches will be mainlined so there will be less maintenance. That said, GPL has worked well for the Linux kernel, possibly better than BSD. (I'm mostly arguin against AGPL.) > Mailpile got that threat when it switched to AGPL-only and so far its contributions haven't slowed down. Now that is interesting.

jordigh 11y ago
> Now you are arguing against closed-source, not liberal open source licenses. Non-copyleft licenses provide no protection against proprietary derivatives. If you have no objection to proprietary derivatives, then I think that's a weak stance to take. It means you don't care if your users can be given your software but without the rights that you intended them to have, because someone between you and your users can always take that right away. While your users might come back to you to get the same software with the same rights you intended them to have, they might not be aware of this, or they might not want your software alone, but together with whatever else was built on top of it, which they cannot get under your original permissive terms anymore.