3 ms·
No, that substitution completely misses my point. One can have deep and well thought out principles and morals and apply that to the strategic selection of a l
by dbcurtis 7y ago
No, that substitution completely misses my point. One can have deep and well thought out principles and morals and apply that to the strategic selection of a license, and also in choosing which projects are worthy of contribution. Ideology-based decisions are in a different category.
When I look at RMS, I see someone who has thought deeply about the implications of various licenses, and has decided firmly what kind of projects are worthy of his time. He has an agenda, and acts upon it thoughtfully. Some of his followers are not nearly so thoughtful.
All I am saying here is this: before choosing a license, be clear in your own mind about your agenda.
- ZeroGravitas 7y agoAs an example to back up your point RMS has explicitly supported the use of non-GPL licenses for codecs as a strategic move to avoid being shut out of that market by network effects.
- darkpuma 7y agoDo you have a link to anything he's written about this? It sounds interesting.
- ZeroGravitas 7y agohttps://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3 https://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3
- xenadu02 7y agoRMS has also endorsed selling exceptions to the GPL, see https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions GPL/AGPL + fee for exceptions seems like a reasonable model to promote freedom and fairness.