3 ms·
> If all software was licensed that way, 5-15 years would pass then suddenly there'd be a whole bunch of "Wow, Stallman was right again! We should have been usi
by Ardren 5y ago
> If all software was licensed that way, 5-15 years would pass then suddenly there'd be a whole bunch of "Wow, Stallman was right again! We should have been using free software licenses!" style articles.
Why do you think that would be the case? If the license doesn't achieve what the creator wanted, then they can just change it. It's not up to the greater community to decide what the best license is for other peoples projects.
It sounds like you have your own idea of what will "improve the world" and want other people to license their work to match with it.
- delroth 5y ago> If the license doesn't achieve what the creator wanted, then they can just change it. No, you can't "just change it" if you have external contributors and you allow them to keep ownership of their contributions (the default). Many people object to CLAs on philosophical reasons and will refuse to sign them. Now your "just change it" is a 6-12 months effort trying to chase down every single contributor and nitpicking your license change until everyone is happy, or rewriting a bunch of code due to licensing issues.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoI don't think you can change the license in hindsight, though? At most you could change it for newer versions of your software?