3 ms·

> is it morally bad to add a license that stops this behavior? Maybe not, but such a license will stop me from including it into Debian or other distros that p

> is it morally bad to add a license that stops this behavior? Maybe not, but such a license will stop me from including it into Debian or other distros that provide Free Software only, and I won't be able to use your code in or mix with projects under a copyleft license such as GPL. If that's what your intention is, then go for it. If not, maybe rethink.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
user-the-name 5y ago
But is that a problem with that license, or is it a problem with Debian? This is a discussion worth having, instead of sweeping it under the rug with "well that's how we've always done it".
- seba_dos1 5y ago
  It's clearly a problem with license incompatibility.
kongin 5y ago
And a GPL license will stop it from being included in OpenBSD. So what?
api 5y ago
Debian has a "non-free" repository. Perhaps it needs a tag for source-available licenses that are not unencumbered enough for core Debian.
- seba_dos1 5y ago
  ...which isn't an official part of Debian and isn't enabled by default, and some derivatives don't include it at all. Also, it seems to me that "non-free" is already a good and descriptive tag for non-free source available software.
ashtonkem 5y ago
So? Sure, using a non-commercial license means you can’t ship with Debian, but that doesn’t mean the project can’t be successful in the eyes of the person who put all the labor in. Perhaps they value being non-commercial above being included in Debian, and that’s their right to make that decision. Sure, it might not be useful to you, but you’re not the one putting in the labor in this hypothetical scenario.
- seba_dos1 5y ago
  So what? The whole purpose of licensing is to make your software useful for others. Let me just repeat the important part of my comment above: > If that's what your intention is, then go for it. If not, maybe rethink.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    That’s presuming that your definition of “useful” is more correct than the author’s definition, which strikes me as more than a bit odd.
    - seba_dos1 5y ago
      That does not presume any definition of "useful", it's just a straight fact. It seems like you're trying to read between the lines when there's nothing there.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        I’m not trying to “read between the lines”, I’m saying that the author of a piece of software gets to decide what they consider to be the point and success criteria for their work, not you. If they don’t want their work being used commercially and that means you can’t use it, that’s a you problem and not a them problem.
        seba_dos1 5y ago
        > I’m not trying to “read between the lines”, I’m saying that the author of a piece of software gets to decide what they consider to be the point and success criteria for their work, not you. Which is pretty much what I said as well, read more carefully.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

user-the-name 5y ago

But is that a problem with that license, or is it a problem with Debian? This is a discussion worth having, instead of sweeping it under the rug with "well that's how we've always done it".

seba_dos1 5y ago
It's clearly a problem with license incompatibility.

kongin 5y ago

And a GPL license will stop it from being included in OpenBSD. So what?

api 5y ago

Debian has a "non-free" repository. Perhaps it needs a tag for source-available licenses that are not unencumbered enough for core Debian.

seba_dos1 5y ago
...which isn't an official part of Debian and isn't enabled by default, and some derivatives don't include it at all. Also, it seems to me that "non-free" is already a good and descriptive tag for non-free source available software.

ashtonkem 5y ago

So? Sure, using a non-commercial license means you can’t ship with Debian, but that doesn’t mean the project can’t be successful in the eyes of the person who put all the labor in. Perhaps they value being non-commercial above being included in Debian, and that’s their right to make that decision. Sure, it might not be useful to you, but you’re not the one putting in the labor in this hypothetical scenario.

seba_dos1 5y ago
So what? The whole purpose of licensing is to make your software useful for others. Let me just repeat the important part of my comment above: > If that's what your intention is, then go for it. If not, maybe rethink.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  That’s presuming that your definition of “useful” is more correct than the author’s definition, which strikes me as more than a bit odd.
  - seba_dos1 5y ago
    That does not presume any definition of "useful", it's just a straight fact. It seems like you're trying to read between the lines when there's nothing there.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      I’m not trying to “read between the lines”, I’m saying that the author of a piece of software gets to decide what they consider to be the point and success criteria for their work, not you. If they don’t want their work being used commercially and that means you can’t use it, that’s a you problem and not a them problem.
      - seba_dos1 5y ago
        > I’m not trying to “read between the lines”, I’m saying that the author of a piece of software gets to decide what they consider to be the point and success criteria for their work, not you. Which is pretty much what I said as well, read more carefully.