5 ms·
This is really bad abuse of terminology. Non-copyleft and copyleft licenses are all both open source and free software licenses. They're all free and open, whic
by milesrout 10y ago
This is really bad abuse of terminology. Non-copyleft and copyleft licenses are all both open source and free software licenses. They're all free and open, which are synonyms in the context of software licensing. I think you'll confuse people if you use the terminology as you are using it (plus it's just plain wrong).
Personally, if I'm writing a hobby project then I want it to be copyleft. Of course I want it to be copyleft. Why wouldn't I? I don't want some company taking my work, making proprietary changes and improvements to it and then not releasing those back to me. Copyleft is simple courtesy that you'd expect anyway, codified into a license.
- seagreen 10y agoI should have written libre not free. That has a clear meaning (and it's what I use in the followup comment). Do you have a better suggestion than "open" for "no restrictions on use"? > Personally, if I'm writing a hobby project then I want it to be copyleft. Totally up to you! In the context of Haskell projects though, I really, really want to see Haskell businesses succeed as well as the open Haskell ecosystem.
- milesrout 10y agoPermissive (like BSD) and copyleft (like GPL) are the most common terms in use. BSD and GPL are both free, libre and open. >Totally up to you! In the context of Haskell projects though, I really, really want to see Haskell businesses succeed as well as the open Haskell ecosystem. There's nothing about the GPL (or other copyleft licenses) that makes them incompatible with business.