4 ms·

Writing alternatives to GPL software under MIT/Apache licenses is really harmful for the FOSS ecosystem. We need to protect end users from more and more propri

Writing alternatives to GPL software under MIT/Apache licenses is really harmful for the FOSS ecosystem. We need to protect end users from more and more proprietarization, tracking and privacy breaching, SaaS and untrusted IoT devices.

pas 3y ago
The road paved with good intentions and all. Sure, users are 1-bit entities in need of protection, no questions 'bout that, but also given that premise they are best served by good software that helps them get their job done. If a kick ass GPL software can do that, great. They will even pay for it. If not? They will pay for the non-OSI one that bundles the GPL and will laugh at GPL enforcement attempts. Licenses are intellectually cute, but unless it's well-enforced AGPL3++ it doesn't matter much. (See the recent thread about 3D printer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38768997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38768997 )
- goodpoint 3y ago
  Such snarky tone sounds unnecessary on HN. > unless it's well-enforced AGPL3++ GPL has been successfully enforced in various occasions, and it can be enforced effectively especially when large companies need to protect their R&D investments from freeloading competitors. A new, stronger "AGPL3++" can be written and enforced. Many companies have been experimenting with new licenses to find more sustainable options than the status quo.
  - pas 3y ago
    It seems necessary when a comment is throwing around hard claims like MIT is bad for FOSS without any supporting evidence/argument, with a side dish of maximum pathos of "think of the poor users". > especially when large companies need to protect their R&D investments from freeloading competitors. That sounds interesting, I haven't heard about instances like these. Can you name a few examples?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

4 ms·

Writing alternatives to GPL software under MIT/Apache licenses is really harmful for the FOSS ecosystem. We need to protect end users from more and more propri

by goodpoint 3y ago

pas 3y ago
The road paved with good intentions and all. Sure, users are 1-bit entities in need of protection, no questions 'bout that, but also given that premise they are best served by good software that helps them get their job done. If a kick ass GPL software can do that, great. They will even pay for it. If not? They will pay for the non-OSI one that bundles the GPL and will laugh at GPL enforcement attempts. Licenses are intellectually cute, but unless it's well-enforced AGPL3++ it doesn't matter much. (See the recent thread about 3D printer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38768997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38768997 )
- goodpoint 3y ago
  Such snarky tone sounds unnecessary on HN. > unless it's well-enforced AGPL3++ GPL has been successfully enforced in various occasions, and it can be enforced effectively especially when large companies need to protect their R&D investments from freeloading competitors. A new, stronger "AGPL3++" can be written and enforced. Many companies have been experimenting with new licenses to find more sustainable options than the status quo.
  - pas 3y ago
    It seems necessary when a comment is throwing around hard claims like MIT is bad for FOSS without any supporting evidence/argument, with a side dish of maximum pathos of "think of the poor users". > especially when large companies need to protect their R&D investments from freeloading competitors. That sounds interesting, I haven't heard about instances like these. Can you name a few examples?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]