4 ms·

I would have thought the FSF/Stallman would be perfectly fine with this. Their main objective is to maximise the freedom of users by advocating for software tha

by spangry 10y ago

I would have thought the FSF/Stallman would be perfectly fine with this. Their main objective is to maximise the freedom of users by advocating for software that can be inspected, modified, shared etc. As far as I know, they are not opposed to someone making a private income off this kind of software. However, it's probably true to say that a number of possible methods of extracting an income would be closed off to you under these conditions. They're closed off not because the copyright(left) is anti private income, but because they're probably user oppressive practices (ones that would be very quickly ripped out of the codebase e.g. sending user private information back to home-base for subsequent sale to advertisers etc.) That's my layman's understanding of the situation anyhow (happy to be corrected if wrong).

int_19h 10y ago
Thing is, a very common model along these lines is to dual-license under copyleft for free, and proprietary commercial license for those who don't like copyleft "virality" (e.g. the way Qt used to do it until switching to LGPL). This works great; but the proprietary part is completely antithetical to the whole "free software" concept.
- spangry 10y ago
  I've been thinking about the dual-licensing approach. Strategically, one could argue that it still aligns with FSF goals. My logic is roughly: (objective) We want people to use software that doesn't oppress them -> People naturally want to use the 'best' software -> Copyleft licences ensure the 'best' software is non-oppressive (via open source, freedom to modify etc.) as derivative improvements can be merged back into the mainline. The key part is that the 'non-oppressive' software is 'the best' (or at least of decent quality) so that people will naturally use it and society as a whole will remain un-oppressed. Mightn't one extend this logic and say: Although we don't get the benefit of useful modifications being mainlined for closed-source, secondarily licensed derivatives, more money for the project means more resources/devs -> ultimately means improved mainline software? I mean, I'm unsure if I agree with that argument, but it seems at least plausible.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    I think it's a perfectly plausible argument. The problem is that it is a pragmatic argument. It is possible to be pragmatic in pursuit of one's ideals - indeed, I would argue that this approach is the one that usually works best (or at all) - but FSF, and Stallman personally, seem to frown upon short-term pragmatic deviations from ideological purity.

by spangry 10y ago

int_19h 10y ago

Thing is, a very common model along these lines is to dual-license under copyleft for free, and proprietary commercial license for those who don't like copyleft "virality" (e.g. the way Qt used to do it until switching to LGPL). This works great; but the proprietary part is completely antithetical to the whole "free software" concept.

spangry 10y ago
I've been thinking about the dual-licensing approach. Strategically, one could argue that it still aligns with FSF goals. My logic is roughly: (objective) We want people to use software that doesn't oppress them -> People naturally want to use the 'best' software -> Copyleft licences ensure the 'best' software is non-oppressive (via open source, freedom to modify etc.) as derivative improvements can be merged back into the mainline. The key part is that the 'non-oppressive' software is 'the best' (or at least of decent quality) so that people will naturally use it and society as a whole will remain un-oppressed. Mightn't one extend this logic and say: Although we don't get the benefit of useful modifications being mainlined for closed-source, secondarily licensed derivatives, more money for the project means more resources/devs -> ultimately means improved mainline software? I mean, I'm unsure if I agree with that argument, but it seems at least plausible.
- int_19h 10y ago
  I think it's a perfectly plausible argument. The problem is that it is a pragmatic argument. It is possible to be pragmatic in pursuit of one's ideals - indeed, I would argue that this approach is the one that usually works best (or at all) - but FSF, and Stallman personally, seem to frown upon short-term pragmatic deviations from ideological purity.