3 ms·

This licensing nonsense is clearly people trying to force their political opinions or business interests upon software consumption. To step aside from the poli

This licensing nonsense is clearly people trying to force their political opinions or business interests upon software consumption. To step aside from the political nonsense and business liability I prefer the most militant permissive license, CCO-1.0, in my own software. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en

Avamander 8y ago
I prefer AGPLv3 on my software because I've been burned by non-GPL software not respecting my wishes and I don't want any of my users to suffer the same fate. Calling it nonsense is short-sighted.
- austincheney 8y ago
  > non-GPL software not respecting my wishes Why would you want to force your desires upon a consumer of your software?
  - Avamander 8y ago
    Why do car manufacturers force their desires upon customers and build seatbelts into their cars?
    - austincheney 8y ago
      Bad analogy. Car manufacturers provide a legally mandated feature, but the manufacturer does not dictate usage and is not obligated to. The user can choose to not use the seatbelt, which is not going to change the design of the car.
      - Avamander 8y ago
        So if software developing had a law that software must give the four essential user freedoms then it'd be okay to give but otherwise it's not okay? Please.
        austincheney 8y ago
        Then I provide the legally mandated requirements as an optional feature the user can choose to avoid. This way I am still not forcing my (or anybody else's) politics on my users. This still doesn't answer the question of why I would want to force my politics on my users.
kemitchell 8y ago
Proud student of an old and noble school of thought! I wrote in my post: > Permissive developers, riding a decade of adoption success and wary of copyleft to begin with, wonder now more than ever whether why they abide copyleft complexity and politics. Permissive points register all the more strongly, with copyleft developers too busy recriminating to answer them.

Avamander 8y ago

I prefer AGPLv3 on my software because I've been burned by non-GPL software not respecting my wishes and I don't want any of my users to suffer the same fate. Calling it nonsense is short-sighted.

austincheney 8y ago
> non-GPL software not respecting my wishes Why would you want to force your desires upon a consumer of your software?
- Avamander 8y ago
  Why do car manufacturers force their desires upon customers and build seatbelts into their cars?
  - austincheney 8y ago
    Bad analogy. Car manufacturers provide a legally mandated feature, but the manufacturer does not dictate usage and is not obligated to. The user can choose to not use the seatbelt, which is not going to change the design of the car.
    - Avamander 8y ago
      So if software developing had a law that software must give the four essential user freedoms then it'd be okay to give but otherwise it's not okay? Please.
      - austincheney 8y ago
        Then I provide the legally mandated requirements as an optional feature the user can choose to avoid. This way I am still not forcing my (or anybody else's) politics on my users. This still doesn't answer the question of why I would want to force my politics on my users.

kemitchell 8y ago

Proud student of an old and noble school of thought! I wrote in my post: > Permissive developers, riding a decade of adoption success and wary of copyleft to begin with, wonder now more than ever whether why they abide copyleft complexity and politics. Permissive points register all the more strongly, with copyleft developers too busy recriminating to answer them.