4 ms·

What?

• saagarjha 3y ago
  Your claim, if I understand it correctly, is that selling an alternate license is OK because you're not doing anything unethical directly; after all, you're offering your version with the code. If they don't provide their source, they're the ones being unethical, not you. I don't think this actually works, because if you look at the reason GPL exists in the first place, it's to prevent precisely this kind of move. It is "immoral" to release your code under a permissive license, not because you are doing something wrong, but because you are enabling someone else to come in and take that code and make proprietary changes. So selling a license to let someone do this seems like the same thing to me.
  • cxr 3y ago
    My claim is that my characterization of how Stallman thinks about this is an accurate characterization of how he thinks about this. > It is "immoral" to release your code under a permissive license That doesn't jibe with the FSF philosophy at all. I get the feeling that I'm interacting with someone who "knows" more about the FSF and Stallman based on what they've heard or imagined rather than actually reading what either Stallman or FSF have to say. Permissive licenses like the X11 license are free software licenses and have the FSF's (and Stallman's) approval.
    • saagarjha 3y ago
      I called Stallman's point a cop out, so I quite frankly do not care very much about his position here, because I think it explicitly goes against what he espouses elsewhere.
      • cxr 3y ago
        I think the real cop-out is wading into a discussion with a comment purporting to explain/address a public figure's "point", and then when it is explained that you haven't portrayed it accurately, declaring you don't actually care about what their position is.