3 ms·

Perhaps I could have phrased things better--it doesn't directly ask for more but it does create additional burdens. It makes my downstream much smaller, which r

Perhaps I could have phrased things better--it doesn't directly ask for more but it does create additional burdens. It makes my downstream much smaller, which results in fewer contributions back to my project. It also just isn't something I want to impose on downstream developers--I want people to use my code, and if they make some money, good for them. It's not like they took anything out of my pocket by doing so. Unfortunately there's a class of entitled moralists who think this is the wrong attitude for me to have, and that I should only distribute code if I pledge to enforce their idea of "freedom" regarding its use.

phkahler 4y ago
>> Unfortunately there's a class of entitled moralists who think this is the wrong attitude for me to have, and that I should only distribute code if I pledge to enforce their idea of "freedom" regarding its use. I think that's a bit harsh. If you think the opposite - that MIT/BSD licenses should be preferred over Copyleft - then you should look in a mirror when saying that. Fortunately I suspect it's just your own preference and that's great. My opinion is that MIT licensed code is appropriate for some cases but I prefer GPLv3 as a default. I'm rather angry at other licenses (MPL and Apache in particular) for existing. Maybe they bring some nuance that I don't understand yet, but their existence creates more options and concern over license compatibility. I think BSD/MIT or GPL/LGPL should be it, the rest IMHO are just fragmentation.
- roarcher 4y ago
  It is my personal preference. I couldn't care less how others license their own code. My issue is with people like those who came into this thread to complain about the license of a project they've contributed nothing to, and paint anyone who disagrees as a paid shill. If they want a rust-based copyleft coreutils, nobody is stopping them from building it.

phkahler 4y ago

>> Unfortunately there's a class of entitled moralists who think this is the wrong attitude for me to have, and that I should only distribute code if I pledge to enforce their idea of "freedom" regarding its use. I think that's a bit harsh. If you think the opposite - that MIT/BSD licenses should be preferred over Copyleft - then you should look in a mirror when saying that. Fortunately I suspect it's just your own preference and that's great. My opinion is that MIT licensed code is appropriate for some cases but I prefer GPLv3 as a default. I'm rather angry at other licenses (MPL and Apache in particular) for existing. Maybe they bring some nuance that I don't understand yet, but their existence creates more options and concern over license compatibility. I think BSD/MIT or GPL/LGPL should be it, the rest IMHO are just fragmentation.

roarcher 4y ago
It is my personal preference. I couldn't care less how others license their own code. My issue is with people like those who came into this thread to complain about the license of a project they've contributed nothing to, and paint anyone who disagrees as a paid shill. If they want a rust-based copyleft coreutils, nobody is stopping them from building it.