6 ms·

This attitude is why we can't have nice things. The author is obviously making a very conscious choice. Respect that!

by simfoo 10y ago

jorangreef 10y ago
"Respect that!" Preference for the MIT license and a wish that the project will reconsider is meant as no indication of a lack of respect. I am sorry you took it that way. This is too good a project not to be under MIT.
- Strom 10y ago
  Licenses other than AGPL-3 are available, as you quoted yourself. Just contact Bill Zissimopoulos for more details. By complaining here you're leaving the impression that you're not interested in any arrangement other than Bill giving you a more liberal license for free.
- cyphar 10y ago
  > This is too good a project not to be under MIT. In my opinion, good projects like these should always be copylefted. Large projects under liberal licenses are essentially donations by the free software community to proprietary software companies. This results in such companies being able to take advantage of their users in unethical ways using your software. The one thing that free software developers have over proprietary software developers is that we can use copylefted software. It maintains user freedom and maintains the competitive advantage that free software companies and communities have over proprietary software companies.
  - jorangreef 10y ago
    I hear what you are saying. Personally, as a contributor to open source, I would like my contributions to go to projects that enable and encourage business. I prefer not to make code contributions to projects that cannot freely be used by all, including business. I consider that to be the spirit of open source. Sure, some businesses will take advantage of Node.js for example because it has an MIT license, but the vast majority will benefit. Startups that build on open source can be more efficient, for the benefit of the customers those businesses exist to serve, honorably, at a profit.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      > I hear what you are saying. I don't think you do, because all you talk about is how lax free software licenses mean businesses can make money. That's a misunderstanding of how copyleft licenses work. No free software copyleft license says you cannot make money. > I would like my contributions to go to projects that enable and encourage business. Many businesses use and develop free software under copyleft licenses. They sell support contracts, it's a very standard model and nothing new. > I prefer not to make code contributions to projects that cannot freely be used by all Copyleft's only restriction is that distributors have to respect the freedom of the people the distribute software to. If you're not a distributor, you don't care. If you're a company that distributes proprietary software and cannot even consider distributing free software, then honestly I wouldn't want my software to be part of your products. It's as simple as that. My main concern is the users of my software. I want to make sure that no distributor or developer can take away the freedoms I intended them to have, and that's what I care about. > Startups that build on open source can be more efficient And what's wrong with that free software being copyleft in that instance? They are taking advantage of very large amounts of human effort to be "more efficient". The least they can do is make their modifications freely available to people they give their software to. And even better would be if they realised that liberating their software is a net benefit to everyone involved. But most startups (unfortunately) don't care about software freedom. > honorably, at a profit. No part of any free software license requires that you cannot charge money for the software or services. Nor does any free software license state that you cannot make a profit. These are strawmen.
      - jorangreef 10y ago
        "But most startups (unfortunately) don't care about software freedom." I think most startups do care, and have cared. And even if some didn't, then I wouldn't want to introduce any potential for them to be forced on the issue with a lawsuit. What do you think of the ZFS/Linux licensing issue? Surely ZFS would have seen broader adoption if not considered a derivative of the kernel by the GPL?
        cyphar 10y ago

This attitude is why we can't have nice things. The author is obviously making a very conscious choice. Respect that!

by simfoo 10y ago

This attitude is why we can't have nice things. The author is obviously making a very conscious choice. Respect that!

"Respect that!" Preference for the MIT license and a wish that the project will reconsider is meant as no indication of a lack of respect. I am sorry you took it that way. This is too good a project not to be under MIT.

Strom 10y ago
Licenses other than AGPL-3 are available, as you quoted yourself. Just contact Bill Zissimopoulos for more details. By complaining here you're leaving the impression that you're not interested in any arrangement other than Bill giving you a more liberal license for free.
cyphar 10y ago
> This is too good a project not to be under MIT. In my opinion, good projects like these should always be copylefted. Large projects under liberal licenses are essentially donations by the free software community to proprietary software companies. This results in such companies being able to take advantage of their users in unethical ways using your software. The one thing that free software developers have over proprietary software developers is that we can use copylefted software. It maintains user freedom and maintains the competitive advantage that free software companies and communities have over proprietary software companies.
- jorangreef 10y ago
  I hear what you are saying. Personally, as a contributor to open source, I would like my contributions to go to projects that enable and encourage business. I prefer not to make code contributions to projects that cannot freely be used by all, including business. I consider that to be the spirit of open source. Sure, some businesses will take advantage of Node.js for example because it has an MIT license, but the vast majority will benefit. Startups that build on open source can be more efficient, for the benefit of the customers those businesses exist to serve, honorably, at a profit.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    > I hear what you are saying. I don't think you do, because all you talk about is how lax free software licenses mean businesses can make money. That's a misunderstanding of how copyleft licenses work. No free software copyleft license says you cannot make money. > I would like my contributions to go to projects that enable and encourage business. Many businesses use and develop free software under copyleft licenses. They sell support contracts, it's a very standard model and nothing new. > I prefer not to make code contributions to projects that cannot freely be used by all Copyleft's only restriction is that distributors have to respect the freedom of the people the distribute software to. If you're not a distributor, you don't care. If you're a company that distributes proprietary software and cannot even consider distributing free software, then honestly I wouldn't want my software to be part of your products. It's as simple as that. My main concern is the users of my software. I want to make sure that no distributor or developer can take away the freedoms I intended them to have, and that's what I care about. > Startups that build on open source can be more efficient And what's wrong with that free software being copyleft in that instance? They are taking advantage of very large amounts of human effort to be "more efficient". The least they can do is make their modifications freely available to people they give their software to. And even better would be if they realised that liberating their software is a net benefit to everyone involved. But most startups (unfortunately) don't care about software freedom. > honorably, at a profit. No part of any free software license requires that you cannot charge money for the software or services. Nor does any free software license state that you cannot make a profit. These are strawmen.
    - jorangreef 10y ago
      "But most startups (unfortunately) don't care about software freedom." I think most startups do care, and have cared. And even if some didn't, then I wouldn't want to introduce any potential for them to be forced on the issue with a lawsuit. What do you think of the ZFS/Linux licensing issue? Surely ZFS would have seen broader adoption if not considered a derivative of the kernel by the GPL?
      - cyphar 10y ago