4 ms·

Congratulation for choosing a free License like BSD/Apache/MIT.

by nix23 6y ago

verdverm 6y ago
I like to think of it as "permissionless" license vs "permissioned" license.
- nix23 6y ago
  I was thinking free as NOT "server side" stuff like MongoDB Cockroach and so on, you know as in the Article described.
  - verdverm 6y ago
    Like when they say developer freedom is beating code freedom, because it doesn't impose restrictions on the developer? i.e. permission(less)
    - nix23 6y ago
      Have you even read the article? I said it's good to choose a free license and not: https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license
      - verdverm 6y ago
        I think you are looking for an argument while I'm agreeing with you. Mongo license would be a permissioned license however
Avamander 6y ago
Only more freedoms to the developers, not end users.
- nix23 6y ago
  >not end users. Pff, the have not more freedom with a GPL, unless they are developers. What freedom do you have when you use Linux but never read or change the source-code?
  - abrambleninja 6y ago
    The freedom for the user that comes with using Linux as a result of it being GPL-licensed is that entities have to contribute any changes they make to the kernel back to the community if they intend to distribute their modified, potentially improved kernel. This results in a better end-result as the kernel can integrate changes that others wrote if they provide a better experience in some way.
    - nix23 6y ago
      Really? And whats with all the proprietary blobs? The Modules (like nvidia), for the end-user it changes absolutely nothing, having bad firmware your wifi will not work, the license is absolutely not important for the end-user. Nearly no one cares that most Androids have stoneage Linux kernels, whats important for them is that the Android-Runtime (aka Play-store) can download and execute "Apps". >potentially improved kernel Or potentially worsened kernel, which now sits in you closed down IoT device, again the license is NOT important for the normal end-user.
      - jraph 6y ago
        It is wrong that the license is absolutely not important for the end-user. Most users might not directly care about the license of the software they use, especially between free software licenses, but they might care about the consequences even if they are not aware of the causal relation. You might not know anything about how the engine works in your car but it is still important that it is made correctly. The whole Free Software movement targets end users and works on the assumption that these questions are important for them. Licenses might look like non significant technical details to most end users, but they are not, and many people not in the field are able to understand the subtleties. We should consider people's ignorance inevitable. This is not a fact we can't do anything about. Software is omnipresent in our societies and as massive effects on them. They have the right to know, should care, and actually often do if you don't push them. I know, I tried. > all the proprietary blobs Which ones? Nvidia seems to the exception here, and only concerns Nvidia's hardware anyway. If you think of Android drivers, they are in user space libraries (Had the Linux kernel been in a non-copyleft license, they would probably live in kernel space and working out the shitty situation of Android with the kernel would be far more difficult. Thanks to the Linux kernel being under GPL, Android vendors and manufacturers are forced to release their kernel sources, which allows projects like Lineage OS and other Android derivatives to exist. > or potentially worsened kernel I can't imagine why kernel developers would accept a patch that knowingly worsens the kernel upstream. The GPL forces shitty hardware makers to release their shitty code but nobody is forced to merge it upstream. bad closed firmware are unfortunate but I don't know what it has to do with Linux being under the GPL.

Congratulation for choosing a free License like BSD/Apache/MIT.

by nix23 6y ago

Congratulation for choosing a free License like BSD/Apache/MIT.

verdverm 6y ago

I like to think of it as "permissionless" license vs "permissioned" license.

nix23 6y ago
I was thinking free as NOT "server side" stuff like MongoDB Cockroach and so on, you know as in the Article described.
- verdverm 6y ago
  Like when they say developer freedom is beating code freedom, because it doesn't impose restrictions on the developer? i.e. permission(less)
  - nix23 6y ago
    Have you even read the article? I said it's good to choose a free license and not: https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license
    - verdverm 6y ago
      I think you are looking for an argument while I'm agreeing with you. Mongo license would be a permissioned license however

Avamander 6y ago

Only more freedoms to the developers, not end users.

nix23 6y ago
>not end users. Pff, the have not more freedom with a GPL, unless they are developers. What freedom do you have when you use Linux but never read or change the source-code?
- abrambleninja 6y ago
  The freedom for the user that comes with using Linux as a result of it being GPL-licensed is that entities have to contribute any changes they make to the kernel back to the community if they intend to distribute their modified, potentially improved kernel. This results in a better end-result as the kernel can integrate changes that others wrote if they provide a better experience in some way.
  - nix23 6y ago
    Really? And whats with all the proprietary blobs? The Modules (like nvidia), for the end-user it changes absolutely nothing, having bad firmware your wifi will not work, the license is absolutely not important for the end-user. Nearly no one cares that most Androids have stoneage Linux kernels, whats important for them is that the Android-Runtime (aka Play-store) can download and execute "Apps". >potentially improved kernel Or potentially worsened kernel, which now sits in you closed down IoT device, again the license is NOT important for the normal end-user.
    - jraph 6y ago
      It is wrong that the license is absolutely not important for the end-user. Most users might not directly care about the license of the software they use, especially between free software licenses, but they might care about the consequences even if they are not aware of the causal relation. You might not know anything about how the engine works in your car but it is still important that it is made correctly. The whole Free Software movement targets end users and works on the assumption that these questions are important for them. Licenses might look like non significant technical details to most end users, but they are not, and many people not in the field are able to understand the subtleties. We should consider people's ignorance inevitable. This is not a fact we can't do anything about. Software is omnipresent in our societies and as massive effects on them. They have the right to know, should care, and actually often do if you don't push them. I know, I tried. > all the proprietary blobs Which ones? Nvidia seems to the exception here, and only concerns Nvidia's hardware anyway. If you think of Android drivers, they are in user space libraries (Had the Linux kernel been in a non-copyleft license, they would probably live in kernel space and working out the shitty situation of Android with the kernel would be far more difficult. Thanks to the Linux kernel being under GPL, Android vendors and manufacturers are forced to release their kernel sources, which allows projects like Lineage OS and other Android derivatives to exist. > or potentially worsened kernel I can't imagine why kernel developers would accept a patch that knowingly worsens the kernel upstream. The GPL forces shitty hardware makers to release their shitty code but nobody is forced to merge it upstream. bad closed firmware are unfortunate but I don't know what it has to do with Linux being under the GPL.