3 ms·
I think most of the commenters on my post misunderstood me very much. I think people should be free to license under GPL, AGPL, SSPL, VXMPL, or whatever the hec
by brobdingnagians 8y ago
I think most of the commenters on my post misunderstood me very much. I think people should be free to license under GPL, AGPL, SSPL, VXMPL, or whatever the heck they want. I like BSD personally, and it meets my requirements, but someone who has a different need can do what they want. I think GPL has worked well for Linux, and I'm glad they did it the way they did; I think it is less free than BSD, but in a good way for their project and purposes. I think having both a GPL licensed OS and a BSD licensed OS is great. We have diversity of licenses for different purposes and different ideologies, and it enriches the market in a lot of ways. I think forcing everyone to use the same copyleft licenses for everything based on a radical ideology is a dangerous and useless endeavour; and that sort of ideology is completely _not_ free in every sense of the word. Do what you want, set your rules for your project as you wish, we are all better for it.
- dhuramas 8y agoI guess it all comes down to whether one thinks free as in beer is "freer" than free as in freedom. Freedom has a price.
- AsyncAwait 8y agoI don't think you were misunderstood. But, I think the way you think of freedom is that one has an absolute freedom do do whatever, including infringing on other freedoms whereas others disagree. By analogy; if one is free to rob someone, they're more free in absolute terms than they're free if they can't do that, but then the person who is about to get robbed isn't free to feel secure. So in other words, the robber is more free, but at the expense of the robbed. In that sense, the BSD license is more absolutely/selfishly free for the individual, whereas the GPL is more freedom-perusing for the entire community.