3 ms·

> Devs, if you want a better world, start contributing to copyleft software. Your version of "a better world" is one in which authors, musicians, movie produce

by feoren 6y ago

> Devs, if you want a better world, start contributing to copyleft software. Your version of "a better world" is one in which authors, musicians, movie producers, artists, and all other creative types are free to make money from their works, but not software developers. When they try to do it, it's immoral. No thanks.

vinceguidry 6y ago
What? I didn't mean to imply that. I'm an associate member of the FSF. I pay my dues with the money that comes from my corporate job which is open source all the way. I use Emacs, and keep my personal hardware as close to free as I can. One day when I'm into the ecosystem enough, I'll start contributing code to GNU projects. The more we can build up free software as an alternative to open source, the more the business world will be forced to use it. They need your dollars more than anything.
- feoren 6y ago
  And my claim is that the fundamental tenants of the FSF are abhorrent fanatical nonsense, made clearly evident if you replace "software" with "novel". They are deeply offended by the idea that your computer could be running proprietary software that you're not free to modify, re-sell, or do whatever you want with; but are they equally offended when your Kindle contains a book you're not allowed to modify, re-sell, and do whatever you want with? Do copyrights on novels offend them as much as copyrights on software? Contributing to open source software is one of the most effective forms of altruism in history -- but it is altruism! Permissive licenses like MIT and LGPL embrace and enable that altruism. Copyleft licenses and the FSF are built around the idea that you are entitled to it, and it is immoral to write commercial/proprietary software. That is fanatical and unhelpful. Unless you think it's always immoral for anyone to make money from a copyrighted work? In that case I'd be a lot more interested in hearing that perspective, because at least it's not hypocritical.
  - ColonelPhantom 6y ago
    Copyleft does not forbid making money. It is perfectly legal to sell a GPL product. Also, with a novel on paper, you generally have similar rights as the GPL grants on software, such as reselling it, making modifications (I can just write on the paper!) and that sort of thing. While scanning and distributing copies is not allowed, quite some GPL companies also crack down on this by simply not providing updates anymore (I believe this approach is taken by the Linux grsec patchset developers).
t0astbread 6y ago
Copyleft doesn't mean you can't make money from it. Software marketing is hard, sure, but if it fits your case, copyleft can actually be turned into a revenue source by selling alternative licenses that allow users to keep their modifications private ("dual-licensing").

by feoren 6y ago

vinceguidry 6y ago

What? I didn't mean to imply that. I'm an associate member of the FSF. I pay my dues with the money that comes from my corporate job which is open source all the way. I use Emacs, and keep my personal hardware as close to free as I can. One day when I'm into the ecosystem enough, I'll start contributing code to GNU projects. The more we can build up free software as an alternative to open source, the more the business world will be forced to use it. They need your dollars more than anything.

feoren 6y ago
And my claim is that the fundamental tenants of the FSF are abhorrent fanatical nonsense, made clearly evident if you replace "software" with "novel". They are deeply offended by the idea that your computer could be running proprietary software that you're not free to modify, re-sell, or do whatever you want with; but are they equally offended when your Kindle contains a book you're not allowed to modify, re-sell, and do whatever you want with? Do copyrights on novels offend them as much as copyrights on software? Contributing to open source software is one of the most effective forms of altruism in history -- but it is altruism! Permissive licenses like MIT and LGPL embrace and enable that altruism. Copyleft licenses and the FSF are built around the idea that you are entitled to it, and it is immoral to write commercial/proprietary software. That is fanatical and unhelpful. Unless you think it's always immoral for anyone to make money from a copyrighted work? In that case I'd be a lot more interested in hearing that perspective, because at least it's not hypocritical.
- ColonelPhantom 6y ago
  Copyleft does not forbid making money. It is perfectly legal to sell a GPL product. Also, with a novel on paper, you generally have similar rights as the GPL grants on software, such as reselling it, making modifications (I can just write on the paper!) and that sort of thing. While scanning and distributing copies is not allowed, quite some GPL companies also crack down on this by simply not providing updates anymore (I believe this approach is taken by the Linux grsec patchset developers).

t0astbread 6y ago

Copyleft doesn't mean you can't make money from it. Software marketing is hard, sure, but if it fits your case, copyleft can actually be turned into a revenue source by selling alternative licenses that allow users to keep their modifications private ("dual-licensing").