4 ms·

>Because why would you want your software become part of the lock-in strategy of a cloud provider Because I care more about that my software was found useful e

>Because why would you want your software become part of the lock-in strategy of a cloud provider Because I care more about that my software was found useful enough to be used, less so about by who and why? This is the main ethos behind licenses like BSD and MIT and APL. That, or I don't care enough to take a stance on license politics, and the BSDlike licenses are the only way I can put my work out there whilst giving any prospective downloader the least amount of need to think about license politics. I don't share this "those evil corporations!" mindset that tends to drive so many that choose a GPL-series license.

zzzcpan 8y ago
> and the BSDlike licenses are the only way I can put my work out there whilst giving any prospective downloader the least amount of need to think about license politics But it also means that you won't be able to independently produce much software to begin with nor sustain such practice. If that's ok, then it doesn't really matter which license you choose. A few hobby libraries and utilities that you will be able to afford to write don't matter much.
doesnt_know 8y ago
From my experience, "those evil companies" isnt actually a common argument in free software circles. It's only a problem in the sense that they fail to pass on the freedoms required by the license (breaking copyright law) or attempt to circumvent the intent of it (see Tivoization). It's pretty common to actually see the opposite. When companies genuinely create/modify/support free software they tend to be praised and actively supported in the free software community.