3 ms·
This is a pretty uncharitable description of copyleft. There are those of us who don't want our code to be used in proprietary software. When you say "licences
by nathcd 9y ago
This is a pretty uncharitable description of copyleft. There are those of us who don't want our code to be used in proprietary software. When you say "licences that actually enable software to be written" or "_useful_ licences", the part you're leaving out is "licences that actually enable software to be written [and embedded in proprietary software]" and "_useful_ licences [for embedding in proprietary software]".
When I write proprietary software (or code that can be used in proprietary software), I want to be compensated for it. For everything else, there's copyleft. I certainly don't want or expect everyone to follow this standard, and I'm also perfectly happy for others that share their code under permissive licenses, but for me (and others like me), copyleft is not "an outdated dogma".
- p0nce 9y agoThe problem is this interact badly with the nature of software which is valuable by being reusable, and extract added value from what can be automated. Where there was perhaps a market need for 1 library for doing task X, now there are countless libraries doing X, each with incompatible licences and programming languages. But the added value to extract hasn't moved. Like too diverse programming languages, I feel like this creativity in licensing only weakens software quality worldwide through rework and contributes to the "too much software" problem. (edit: and it's worse with licences who aren't actually legal anywhere)