3 ms·
There is not even a "what if" to apply; it would be fundamentally contrary to Open Source and Free Software (violates freedom 0) And I've nothing against peopl
by temac 6y ago
There is not even a "what if" to apply; it would be fundamentally contrary to Open Source and Free Software (violates freedom 0)
And I've nothing against people who want to invent new models. Just: this can't apply to the whole current Open Source / Free Software corpus and ecosystem. And this new model will never be able to mix.
Payed license does not need to be created anyway. This already widely exist and this is just proprietary software. And among proprietary software, there are also licenses that are incompatible between each others. And proprietary licenses that don't require monetary paiement from individuals.
So does creating new proprietary licenses that would be obviously incompatible with Free Software licenses, and probably incompatible with most other proprietary licenses, would achieve anything interesting? I doubt it.
- HeyLaughingBoy 6y agoYou've summed up the problem I have with OP's arguments. OSS already has a number of available licenses of varying levels of freedom that lets the creator decide how their creation should be used. This entire discussion reads like "you developers are idiots who don't realize you're being taken advantage of." Whenever someone starts their argument with the (implicit or explicit) assumption that they are smarter than everyone else, my experience tells me that there's a hidden agenda in there somewhere. In this case it seems to be as trite as "corporations bad, people good" which, not to put too fine a point on it, is bullshit.
- hnedeotes 6y agoYeah, the illuminati agenda.