4 ms·
The argument we're making is that it's a line that made sense in 1980s academia when you wanted printer drivers. Less so in 2020s real life where we are a hair
by kongin 5y ago
The argument we're making is that it's a line that made sense in 1980s academia when you wanted printer drivers.
Less so in 2020s real life where we are a hair width away from smart dust total surveillance.
- lmm 5y agoOk but you have to actually make the argument for what specifically has changed, not just gesture vaguely at the idea that the present is different from the past.
- kongin 5y agoThe vast majority of users never access the computers they use. Every open source license, apart from the AGPL, is for personal computing first and mainframe never. Which is why you don't have the source code for google even though you should.
- lmm 5y agoThe AGPL and related licenses have been around for decades and they address that problem in a very direct way (getting the community to adopt those licenses is a bigger issue). Where's the argument for a no commercial use rule being a better way of achieving the desired goal?
- kongin 5y agoThis has nothing to do with what you asked in your last post.
- lmm 5y agoYes it does. The AGPL is based on the same free software definition that's stood for many decades, so where do you get the notion that the shift from personal to cloud computing means we should change or replace the free software definition.
- kongin 5y ago> The vast majority of users never access the computers they use. Every open source license, apart from the AGPL, is for personal computing first and mainframe never. Which is why you don't have the source code for google even though you should.