10 ms·

Write Free Software

85 points by stargrave 3y ago

extr0pian 3y ago
Not sure to what degree Drew Devault is involved in this project, if at all or entirely: https://drewdevault.com/2023/06/19/Reforming-the-free-software-message.html https://drewdevault.com/2023/06/19/Reforming-the-free-softwa...
- velcrovan 3y ago
  That blog post strongly implies (though doesn’t explicitly say) he’s the author, and links to a git repo for the site on SourceHut that is under his own account.
  - distcs 3y ago
    Feels a bit off to have a self-serving link to your own project and not mention it somewhere as disclosure. Nothing wrong about a self-serving link but not disclosing it that seems a bit off to me.
    - ddevault 3y ago
      Not sure how this comes across as self-serving or what the nature of this protest is, but if you explain it in more detail perhaps I can make a correction.
      - distcs 3y ago
        Sorry if this came off as a protest. It is not a protest. Maybe I am overthinking this but creating this page (which is a great idea) and then have a link from it point back to sourcehut (which is an open source business of yours IIRC) seems a bit off. It wouldn't be a lot of trouble to disclose the connection between the author of this page and the owner of sourcehut, would it? I think it'd be nice to do it so that it does not look like you are using the agenda of promoting free software to also promote your own open source business.
        ddevault 3y ago
        I dunno, it's just a place to store the code, and SourceHut is itself free software. I could put it on Codeberg or something, I guess, but it doesn't really seem like a big deal. Never heard anyone criticize the FSF or GNU for their use of savannah.gnu.org.
    - velcrovan 3y ago
      Wait…it’s his own blog on his own website… isn’t writing about your own projects kind of the point in that context? What about this is “self-serving” in a way that requires disclosure???
jmclnx 3y ago
If you do get involved, I would use the GPLv3 for your code. Read this "more RMS" for my reason: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36389805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36389805
- whartung 3y ago
  Honestly, I have a desktop app that I have grand designs to release, but even though it's a desktop app, I'm thinking of using AGPL for it. Simply, there are services and facilities that are wrapped in a GUI that could readily be lifted and plopped into a "service", so just seems that AGPL would be better. Not sure if that's a good idea or not.
  - RobotToaster 3y ago
    IMO the GPL V3 should have just been the text of the AGPL, there's no downside to using the AGPL.
  - southwesterly 3y ago
    I’m thinking of doing it for a desktop game, so yes?
  - vladharbuz 3y ago
    I’m going through the exact same thought process, also working on a desktop app, also using AGPL.
wiz21c 3y ago
The fourth freedom is rephrased as the "right to collaborate". Yeah, right, but the official "definition" is pretty clear to me so I don't see the point in re-writing it. Moreover, but in my own opinion, nowadays free software is more about the obligation to share the modifications. I gather that many know what open source is, but that obligation, is crucially important and embodies the political statement of the FSF. It's what puts free software truly apart (and makes it great, IMHO). So I'd move the copyleft explanation higher in the list, closer to the 4 freedoms.
- smlavine 3y ago
  You'd be surprised how many people in the software engineering tutoring/mentoring group at my university -- the students who are more interested than anyone else in writing, sharing, and reading code -- who know no more about FOSS at all than that "open source" means you can download it for free, or do whatever you want with it. I'm not simplifying; many have not learned of the concept of software licenses in the way many FOSS contributors have. It seems to me that the website is taking the position of explaining free software from first principles, rather than as this branch or strain of open source that you already have to understand to really get. I think that's a good thing.
  - distcs 3y ago
    > I'm not simplifying; many have not learned of the concept of software licenses in the way many FOSS contributors have. Just give it sometime and you'll see many examples of that in this very thread. Everytime the topic of opensource license comes up, there will surely be a comment that conflates "source available" with "opensource" or even worse insist that "source available" also qualifies to be "opensource". It is like words don't mean anything anymore. It is like apple is apple and pear is also apple because it looks round and we can eat it. stops ranting. Coming back to this post, I think it is valuable to explain opensource from first principles like this.
    - bityard 3y ago
      This is becoming so common that I am starting to wonder if it's intentional, to erode and dilute the actual meaning of "open source." There have been a spate of startup products that advertise themselves as "open source" to capitalize on the marketing/SEO advantages of doing so. And when called out on this in comments or whatever, the founder eventually presents some kind of argument along the lines of, "well if anyone can read the code then it is open!" or even the old "language can evolve" canard that people trot out when they want the meaning of a commonly-understood word or phrase inverted to fit their specific business or political agenda.
Pannoniae 3y ago
I'm tired of "source-available" or open-source but unorthodox licence software being mocked. Things like SQLite (which has a clause about Christianity and its moral values) or licences which prohibit specific sectors or use-cases like surveillance or dual-use technologies. I suspect the reason behind that is lobbying by large companies who can't use software like that, so they push complete open source without restrictions so they can benefit from it.
- stefncb 3y ago
  I agree, except for the SQLite thing; the code is fully public domain and the license is safely ignorable. The reason it exists in the first place is for corporations to have some formal license to buy if they have an internal policy requiring it. They wrote it mostly as a joke.
  - Pannoniae 3y ago
    I 100% agree and I know, it's just that do-gooder people somehow still make a fuss about criticising it for zero logical reason.
- Jtsummers 3y ago
  The "clause about Christianity" is the Code of Ethics that they tacked on to check a box someone insisted on them checking. The source code is public domain and there is no clause about Christianity if you want to contribute. From the Code of Ethics: > This document continues to be used for its original purpose - providing a reference to fill in the "code of conduct" box on supplier registration forms. and > No one is required to follow The Rule, to know The Rule, or even to think that The Rule is a good idea. Makes it pretty clear to any but the most conflict seeking people out there that it's just a box filler (for some contract purposes) and not an expectation for the community generally.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
velcrovan 3y ago
It’s a bit disappointing to see MIT and BSD still being recommended in the “permissive license” category for new projects. Their shortcomings are pretty well known by this point, but this is a good summary: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice...
- bobajeff 3y ago
  I've never heard of Blue Oak before now is there any legal reason why it's not more common?
  - distcs 3y ago
    It is not more common because popular software don't use it and there is no need to. We don't need yet another FOSS license. There are plenty of them serving different kinds of needs. The license is developed by the author of the link in parent comment so it's no wonder that they are promoting their own license every chance they get.
    - velcrovan 3y ago
      Can you identify a single other license that addresses all the shortcomings in the MIT license in a better way than the Blue Oak Model license? Saying “we don’t need another license” is like saying we don’t need more software, since there is already plenty of software “serving different kinds of needs.” We create new tools to address specific concerns in a better way. What’s the problem?
  - velcrovan 3y ago
    No, there isn’t a legal reason why it’s not more common.
- jahav 3y ago
  Considering how many times author referenced BlueOak license, it seems like he had a license to promote.
timerol 3y ago
> Generally speaking, all open source software is free software, and vice versa. (From the tooltip in https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/ https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/.) This seems to be the most objectionable statement made, though it is properly hedged. The description in the paragraph above it is pretty unobjectionable, too.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Under the normal OSI definition of open source that's pretty much true but I think what would clarify it is that when some people say free software they mean copyleft and you have to know from context.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    > when some people say free software they mean copyleft Who has ever meant this?
    - funcDropShadow 3y ago
      The free software foundation for example.
      - josephcsible 3y ago
        No they don't. The FSF explicitly says that a bunch of non-copyleft licenses are free: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
huhtenberg 3y ago
> ... the freedom to use, study, improve, and share your software. Does this mean that the software released under an OSI license with the Commons Clause attached [1] is considered "free" by their definition? Because CC allows all of the above, but prohibits commercialization. If not, then perhaps they should elaborate on that aspect. https://commonsclause.com https://commonsclause.com
- ddevault 3y ago
  Commons Clause is non-free. It does not meet freedom 0: https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/four-freedoms/#0-use-the-software https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/four-freedoms/#0-use-the... There are also specific comments about non-free source-available software here: https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/#what-is-source-available-software https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/#what-is-source-availabl...
  - huhtenberg 3y ago
    Since your site quite explicitly aims to be an introduction to the F/OSS, it'd be prudent to explain that the "use" includes "resell". Seeing one's altruistic work meant for the common good being unceremoniously repackaged, sold and SEO'd above the original can be very discouraging.
    - ddevault 3y ago
      I feel like it's pretty explicit: > You are entitled to the use of any free software for any purpose, including commercial use – counter-intuitively, you can sell free software. There are also sections which go into the utility of copyleft to mitigate some of this. Might be worth going into more detail in a blog post.
      - huhtenberg 3y ago
        It's nowhere near being explicit. "Commercial use" is really quite ambiguous. In common parlance of people somewhat exposed to the software licensing it means "use for work", because of the proliferation of "personal use" and "commercial use" licensing duos. Realizing that this clause also covers other people being allowed to sell your work is a non-trivial effort. I'd also argue that this would go very much against expectations of FOSS newcomers as it's pretty much counter-intuitive as it goes against the altruistic spirit of the FOSS. Hence the need to have it explained upfront and very clearly.
ltr_ 3y ago
just curious: what would be the answer from FSF/OSS people to , cheating and opensource games/libraries?. i mean if for example dota2 were open source it would be fairly trivial to make scripts to send commands on events (even closed source games get cheat mods!). off topic : on the other side, i think is inevitable that at some point in the future players will have AI assistants looking at their screens , making decisions and inputs just like a real human, (heck! you can sort of do that now with linux/x11 , screen grab and proton very easily), i personally would love to see competitive gaming involving AI agents and assistance.
- ddevault 3y ago
  This is addressed a bit here: https://writefreesoftware.org/blog/free-software-games/#but-cheaters-could-use-it https://writefreesoftware.org/blog/free-software-games/#but-... tl;dr: access to the source code will help people develop cheats but it's not really required, your game's gonna have cheaters unless you do server side cheat mitigations.
  - abdullahkhalids 3y ago
    That covers things somewhat, but not entirely. In Dota (and other games), there are a lot of purely client side cheats, that are obtained by reverse engineering the closed source client. Some examples that can't be detected server side reliably. * Keyboard macros. Actions that require multi keys pressed in sequence can be done with one key press. * Bigger viewport. Your client has information about the entire visible map, but by default only shows a certain part on your screen. Client side hack zooms out the view and shows you a much larger area. * Auto disable. A very strong cheat. If an enemy suddenly jumps on you from out of vision, immediately cast disable spell on them. Doesn't matter if you were looking somewhere else or doing something else. Valve can't prevent people from creating these cheats, but they put code in other parts of the close source client that detects the usage of these cheats. Then they create a list of these cheaters and every few months have a ban wave. And change the code enough to break the cheat.
    - pabs3 3y ago
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Everything Old is New again. Seems like a throw back to early lofty ideals of open source.
lucideer 3y ago
The lack of very obvious attribution or association in the website copy from @sircmpwn is a little odd. The very-subtle-is-it-even-clickable circle top-right is the only indicator. Otherwise this looks pretty good (though my first impression was "who is this? why should I read it?" so it took me a while to get into it) - I'll definitely be sending it to people; it's clean, tidy & straightforward. One nit-pick: the term "free software" is often understood to be narrowly defined (copyleft), so including permissive licences is tricky, though they're at least described AFTER the copyleft section, which is nice. Although... is MPL copyleft???
- distcs 3y ago
  The term "free software" as defined by FSF always included permissive open source licenses. Do you have any link or evidence to present that supports your claim that FSF's free software definition excluded permissive licenses?
- dralley 3y ago
  MPL 2.0 is copyleft. A weak copyleft, slightly weaker than LGPL, but still copyleft. I quite like it. It's much simpler to understand and easier to comply with than LGPL.
  - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
    MPL selfdestructs after compilation, that's quite counterintuitive "copyleft".
    - dralley 3y ago
      On the contrary. MPL protects source code files. If you copy the source code files, you copy the license. If you add new source to the same files, that code must share the same license. That's perfectly simple to understand. Compare to the LGPL, which has different rules depending on the exact details of how the library is constructed and linked.
      - 3y ago
Devasta 3y ago
Unironically, AGPL3 is the best license. Even if you don't believe in the principals of free software, it has a lot going for it: Unlike MIT, you get full access to GPL3 and Apache licensed software, no need to worry about relicensing your code, no need to worry about derivative works or anything, just set it and forget it. In addition, corporations will avoid you like the plague. No need to worry about breaking anything, tinker away on your project freely without concern for backwards compatibility. MIT is free as in free tech support, the sooner people accept that the better off we'll all be.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  "Free as in free tech support?"
  - jahav 3y ago
    He likely means that companies will use the software and create issues with their problems without contributing anything back = developer will be free support for companies making money with no benefit. AGPL doesn't have such problems because it's more radioactive than anything for companies = will be used only by other free software developers
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- pwdisswordfishc 3y ago
  I believe in the principals, but not necessarily the agents.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  It's the best license because choosing anything else means enriching corporations for free. I've come to think of open source software as just a wealth transfer from developers to corporations at the former's expense. It just makes no rational sense to release code that isn't free as in freedom. It's either that or fully copyrighted, all rights reserved.
mistrial9 3y ago
sorry, bad title in the USA. I think the word FREE gives more ammunition to critics than assists for advocates. LIBRE is an alternate word
phendrenad2 3y ago
Alternatively, to give people maximum freedom, write public-domain software

85 points by stargrave 3y ago

Not sure to what degree Drew Devault is involved in this project, if at all or entirely: https://drewdevault.com/2023/06/19/Reforming-the-free-software-message.html https://drewdevault.com/2023/06/19/Reforming-the-free-softwa...

velcrovan 3y ago
That blog post strongly implies (though doesn’t explicitly say) he’s the author, and links to a git repo for the site on SourceHut that is under his own account.
- distcs 3y ago
  Feels a bit off to have a self-serving link to your own project and not mention it somewhere as disclosure. Nothing wrong about a self-serving link but not disclosing it that seems a bit off to me.
  - ddevault 3y ago
    Not sure how this comes across as self-serving or what the nature of this protest is, but if you explain it in more detail perhaps I can make a correction.
    - distcs 3y ago
      Sorry if this came off as a protest. It is not a protest. Maybe I am overthinking this but creating this page (which is a great idea) and then have a link from it point back to sourcehut (which is an open source business of yours IIRC) seems a bit off. It wouldn't be a lot of trouble to disclose the connection between the author of this page and the owner of sourcehut, would it? I think it'd be nice to do it so that it does not look like you are using the agenda of promoting free software to also promote your own open source business.
      - ddevault 3y ago
        I dunno, it's just a place to store the code, and SourceHut is itself free software. I could put it on Codeberg or something, I guess, but it doesn't really seem like a big deal. Never heard anyone criticize the FSF or GNU for their use of savannah.gnu.org.
  - velcrovan 3y ago
    Wait…it’s his own blog on his own website… isn’t writing about your own projects kind of the point in that context? What about this is “self-serving” in a way that requires disclosure???

jmclnx 3y ago

If you do get involved, I would use the GPLv3 for your code. Read this "more RMS" for my reason: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36389805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36389805

whartung 3y ago
Honestly, I have a desktop app that I have grand designs to release, but even though it's a desktop app, I'm thinking of using AGPL for it. Simply, there are services and facilities that are wrapped in a GUI that could readily be lifted and plopped into a "service", so just seems that AGPL would be better. Not sure if that's a good idea or not.
- RobotToaster 3y ago
  IMO the GPL V3 should have just been the text of the AGPL, there's no downside to using the AGPL.
- southwesterly 3y ago
  I’m thinking of doing it for a desktop game, so yes?
- vladharbuz 3y ago
  I’m going through the exact same thought process, also working on a desktop app, also using AGPL.

wiz21c 3y ago

The fourth freedom is rephrased as the "right to collaborate". Yeah, right, but the official "definition" is pretty clear to me so I don't see the point in re-writing it. Moreover, but in my own opinion, nowadays free software is more about the obligation to share the modifications. I gather that many know what open source is, but that obligation, is crucially important and embodies the political statement of the FSF. It's what puts free software truly apart (and makes it great, IMHO). So I'd move the copyleft explanation higher in the list, closer to the 4 freedoms.

smlavine 3y ago
You'd be surprised how many people in the software engineering tutoring/mentoring group at my university -- the students who are more interested than anyone else in writing, sharing, and reading code -- who know no more about FOSS at all than that "open source" means you can download it for free, or do whatever you want with it. I'm not simplifying; many have not learned of the concept of software licenses in the way many FOSS contributors have. It seems to me that the website is taking the position of explaining free software from first principles, rather than as this branch or strain of open source that you already have to understand to really get. I think that's a good thing.
- distcs 3y ago
  > I'm not simplifying; many have not learned of the concept of software licenses in the way many FOSS contributors have. Just give it sometime and you'll see many examples of that in this very thread. Everytime the topic of opensource license comes up, there will surely be a comment that conflates "source available" with "opensource" or even worse insist that "source available" also qualifies to be "opensource". It is like words don't mean anything anymore. It is like apple is apple and pear is also apple because it looks round and we can eat it. stops ranting. Coming back to this post, I think it is valuable to explain opensource from first principles like this.
  - bityard 3y ago
    This is becoming so common that I am starting to wonder if it's intentional, to erode and dilute the actual meaning of "open source." There have been a spate of startup products that advertise themselves as "open source" to capitalize on the marketing/SEO advantages of doing so. And when called out on this in comments or whatever, the founder eventually presents some kind of argument along the lines of, "well if anyone can read the code then it is open!" or even the old "language can evolve" canard that people trot out when they want the meaning of a commonly-understood word or phrase inverted to fit their specific business or political agenda.

Pannoniae 3y ago

I'm tired of "source-available" or open-source but unorthodox licence software being mocked. Things like SQLite (which has a clause about Christianity and its moral values) or licences which prohibit specific sectors or use-cases like surveillance or dual-use technologies. I suspect the reason behind that is lobbying by large companies who can't use software like that, so they push complete open source without restrictions so they can benefit from it.

stefncb 3y ago
I agree, except for the SQLite thing; the code is fully public domain and the license is safely ignorable. The reason it exists in the first place is for corporations to have some formal license to buy if they have an internal policy requiring it. They wrote it mostly as a joke.
- Pannoniae 3y ago
  I 100% agree and I know, it's just that do-gooder people somehow still make a fuss about criticising it for zero logical reason.
Jtsummers 3y ago
The "clause about Christianity" is the Code of Ethics that they tacked on to check a box someone insisted on them checking. The source code is public domain and there is no clause about Christianity if you want to contribute. From the Code of Ethics: > This document continues to be used for its original purpose - providing a reference to fill in the "code of conduct" box on supplier registration forms. and > No one is required to follow The Rule, to know The Rule, or even to think that The Rule is a good idea. Makes it pretty clear to any but the most conflict seeking people out there that it's just a box filler (for some contract purposes) and not an expectation for the community generally.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

velcrovan 3y ago

It’s a bit disappointing to see MIT and BSD still being recommended in the “permissive license” category for new projects. Their shortcomings are pretty well known by this point, but this is a good summary: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice...

bobajeff 3y ago
I've never heard of Blue Oak before now is there any legal reason why it's not more common?
- distcs 3y ago
  It is not more common because popular software don't use it and there is no need to. We don't need yet another FOSS license. There are plenty of them serving different kinds of needs. The license is developed by the author of the link in parent comment so it's no wonder that they are promoting their own license every chance they get.
  - velcrovan 3y ago
    Can you identify a single other license that addresses all the shortcomings in the MIT license in a better way than the Blue Oak Model license? Saying “we don’t need another license” is like saying we don’t need more software, since there is already plenty of software “serving different kinds of needs.” We create new tools to address specific concerns in a better way. What’s the problem?
- velcrovan 3y ago
  No, there isn’t a legal reason why it’s not more common.
jahav 3y ago
Considering how many times author referenced BlueOak license, it seems like he had a license to promote.

timerol 3y ago

> Generally speaking, all open source software is free software, and vice versa. (From the tooltip in https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/ https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/.) This seems to be the most objectionable statement made, though it is properly hedged. The description in the paragraph above it is pretty unobjectionable, too.

Spivak 3y ago
Under the normal OSI definition of open source that's pretty much true but I think what would clarify it is that when some people say free software they mean copyleft and you have to know from context.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  > when some people say free software they mean copyleft Who has ever meant this?
  - funcDropShadow 3y ago
    The free software foundation for example.
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      No they don't. The FSF explicitly says that a bunch of non-copyleft licenses are free: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

huhtenberg 3y ago

> ... the freedom to use, study, improve, and share your software. Does this mean that the software released under an OSI license with the Commons Clause attached [1] is considered "free" by their definition? Because CC allows all of the above, but prohibits commercialization. If not, then perhaps they should elaborate on that aspect. https://commonsclause.com https://commonsclause.com

ddevault 3y ago
Commons Clause is non-free. It does not meet freedom 0: https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/four-freedoms/#0-use-the-software https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/four-freedoms/#0-use-the... There are also specific comments about non-free source-available software here: https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/#what-is-source-available-software https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/#what-is-source-availabl...
- huhtenberg 3y ago
  Since your site quite explicitly aims to be an introduction to the F/OSS, it'd be prudent to explain that the "use" includes "resell". Seeing one's altruistic work meant for the common good being unceremoniously repackaged, sold and SEO'd above the original can be very discouraging.
  - ddevault 3y ago
    I feel like it's pretty explicit: > You are entitled to the use of any free software for any purpose, including commercial use – counter-intuitively, you can sell free software. There are also sections which go into the utility of copyleft to mitigate some of this. Might be worth going into more detail in a blog post.
    - huhtenberg 3y ago
      It's nowhere near being explicit. "Commercial use" is really quite ambiguous. In common parlance of people somewhat exposed to the software licensing it means "use for work", because of the proliferation of "personal use" and "commercial use" licensing duos. Realizing that this clause also covers other people being allowed to sell your work is a non-trivial effort. I'd also argue that this would go very much against expectations of FOSS newcomers as it's pretty much counter-intuitive as it goes against the altruistic spirit of the FOSS. Hence the need to have it explained upfront and very clearly.

ltr_ 3y ago

just curious: what would be the answer from FSF/OSS people to , cheating and opensource games/libraries?. i mean if for example dota2 were open source it would be fairly trivial to make scripts to send commands on events (even closed source games get cheat mods!). off topic : on the other side, i think is inevitable that at some point in the future players will have AI assistants looking at their screens , making decisions and inputs just like a real human, (heck! you can sort of do that now with linux/x11 , screen grab and proton very easily), i personally would love to see competitive gaming involving AI agents and assistance.

ddevault 3y ago
This is addressed a bit here: https://writefreesoftware.org/blog/free-software-games/#but-cheaters-could-use-it https://writefreesoftware.org/blog/free-software-games/#but-... tl;dr: access to the source code will help people develop cheats but it's not really required, your game's gonna have cheaters unless you do server side cheat mitigations.
- abdullahkhalids 3y ago
  That covers things somewhat, but not entirely. In Dota (and other games), there are a lot of purely client side cheats, that are obtained by reverse engineering the closed source client. Some examples that can't be detected server side reliably. * Keyboard macros. Actions that require multi keys pressed in sequence can be done with one key press. * Bigger viewport. Your client has information about the entire visible map, but by default only shows a certain part on your screen. Client side hack zooms out the view and shows you a much larger area. * Auto disable. A very strong cheat. If an enemy suddenly jumps on you from out of vision, immediately cast disable spell on them. Doesn't matter if you were looking somewhere else or doing something else. Valve can't prevent people from creating these cheats, but they put code in other parts of the close source client that detects the usage of these cheats. Then they create a list of these cheaters and every few months have a ban wave. And change the code enough to break the cheat.
  - pabs3 3y ago

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Everything Old is New again. Seems like a throw back to early lofty ideals of open source.

lucideer 3y ago

The lack of very obvious attribution or association in the website copy from @sircmpwn is a little odd. The very-subtle-is-it-even-clickable circle top-right is the only indicator. Otherwise this looks pretty good (though my first impression was "who is this? why should I read it?" so it took me a while to get into it) - I'll definitely be sending it to people; it's clean, tidy & straightforward. One nit-pick: the term "free software" is often understood to be narrowly defined (copyleft), so including permissive licences is tricky, though they're at least described AFTER the copyleft section, which is nice. Although... is MPL copyleft???

distcs 3y ago
The term "free software" as defined by FSF always included permissive open source licenses. Do you have any link or evidence to present that supports your claim that FSF's free software definition excluded permissive licenses?
dralley 3y ago
MPL 2.0 is copyleft. A weak copyleft, slightly weaker than LGPL, but still copyleft. I quite like it. It's much simpler to understand and easier to comply with than LGPL.
- GoblinSlayer 3y ago
  MPL selfdestructs after compilation, that's quite counterintuitive "copyleft".
  - dralley 3y ago
    On the contrary. MPL protects source code files. If you copy the source code files, you copy the license. If you add new source to the same files, that code must share the same license. That's perfectly simple to understand. Compare to the LGPL, which has different rules depending on the exact details of how the library is constructed and linked.
    - 3y ago

Devasta 3y ago

Unironically, AGPL3 is the best license. Even if you don't believe in the principals of free software, it has a lot going for it: Unlike MIT, you get full access to GPL3 and Apache licensed software, no need to worry about relicensing your code, no need to worry about derivative works or anything, just set it and forget it. In addition, corporations will avoid you like the plague. No need to worry about breaking anything, tinker away on your project freely without concern for backwards compatibility. MIT is free as in free tech support, the sooner people accept that the better off we'll all be.

shadowgovt 3y ago
"Free as in free tech support?"
- jahav 3y ago
  He likely means that companies will use the software and create issues with their problems without contributing anything back = developer will be free support for companies making money with no benefit. AGPL doesn't have such problems because it's more radioactive than anything for companies = will be used only by other free software developers
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
pwdisswordfishc 3y ago
I believe in the principals, but not necessarily the agents.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
It's the best license because choosing anything else means enriching corporations for free. I've come to think of open source software as just a wealth transfer from developers to corporations at the former's expense. It just makes no rational sense to release code that isn't free as in freedom. It's either that or fully copyrighted, all rights reserved.

mistrial9 3y ago

sorry, bad title in the USA. I think the word FREE gives more ammunition to critics than assists for advocates. LIBRE is an alternate word

phendrenad2 3y ago

Alternatively, to give people maximum freedom, write public-domain software