3 ms·

> What, exactly, is supposed to be so bad about that? The eventual users of the hypothetical commercial OS lose their freedom. (Or don't get their freedom, dep

by F3nd0 3y ago

> What, exactly, is supposed to be so bad about that? The eventual users of the hypothetical commercial OS lose their freedom. (Or don't get their freedom, depending on your point of view.) Permissive licences grant users freedom, but don't preserve those freedoms in derivative works, so the original work can end up helping derived software disrespect users' freedom. For those who believe that users' freedom should always be respected, this is a very bad thing that needs to be avoided.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
Freedom includes allowing users to choose a less free alternative because they derive benefits in doing so.
- F3nd0 3y ago
  Copyleft in no way prevents users from choosing to use alternative software. It merely prevents them from stripping away the associated freedoms for other users.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    > Copyleft in no way prevents users from choosing to use alternative software. No, but you arguing every FOSS project should be GPL3 does. You're arguing against alternative licenses here, meaning you're arguing against freedom of people to release software under a license they prefer.
    - F3nd0 3y ago
      Me arguing for copyleft does not prevent users from choosing to use alternative software, either. It does encourage them, though (which I can only assume is your point). I also didn’t write that every ‘FOSS’ project should use GPLv3. The freedom I care about (because I think it’s very impactful and extremely important to preserve) is the freedom to use, know, share and modify software. Licensing is a useful tool to help ascertain that freedom, but beyond that, I consider the freedom to choose a licence nowhere near as important.
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        > Me arguing for copyleft does not prevent users from choosing to use alternative software, either. It does encourage them, though (which I can only assume is your point). I also didn’t write that every ‘FOSS’ project should use GPLv3. You were arguing the project should not be MIT but GPL3 though. Why can't this project use whatever license they like? If not all FOSS project need be GPL3 but this one should, what are some examples of ones that you would be fine with being MIT?
        F3nd0 3y ago
        > You were arguing the project should not be MIT but GPL3 though. I was arguing generally against permissive licences and in favour of copyleft, without pointing out a specific one, but as a matter of fact I do think that GPLv3 would be a much better choice for this project. (The thread’s OP did name specific licences, though.) > Why can't this project use whatever license they like? Why they can’t or why I argue they shouldn’t? Technically they’re able to choose any licence they like, and I argue it should be a copyleft one because I think preserving the four user freedoms is important and not accomplished with permissive licences. > If not all FOSS project need be GPL3 but this one should, what are some examples of ones that you would be fine with being MIT? All of the various MIT licences are similarly permissive, right? In that case, I think they make a decent choice for small and relatively simple programs which do not present a great amount of work and could be replicated or imitated without much effort. Programs like True, Hangman, Cowsay or short userscripts. But if you have a relatively large program, or a project where a great number of such smaller programs work together, I think they ought to be released under a copyleft licence. A new kernel is a good example of such a program, as are core utilities, terminal emulators, media players, web extensions, complex games, etc. So Maestro, seL4, Redox, GNU, Terminology, VLC, mpv, uBlock, Minetest and so on. I think weak copyleft licences (such as the MPL or the LGPL) can make a great option for programs with a good ethical reason to maximise their usage (including by non-free software). In my opinion, there's seldom a good reason to abandon copyleft altogether. (And as that may imply, it is my view that copyleft should be the default choice. When in doubt, protect your users’ four essential freedoms.)

by F3nd0 3y ago

PrimeMcFly 3y ago

Freedom includes allowing users to choose a less free alternative because they derive benefits in doing so.

F3nd0 3y ago
Copyleft in no way prevents users from choosing to use alternative software. It merely prevents them from stripping away the associated freedoms for other users.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  > Copyleft in no way prevents users from choosing to use alternative software. No, but you arguing every FOSS project should be GPL3 does. You're arguing against alternative licenses here, meaning you're arguing against freedom of people to release software under a license they prefer.
  - F3nd0 3y ago
    Me arguing for copyleft does not prevent users from choosing to use alternative software, either. It does encourage them, though (which I can only assume is your point). I also didn’t write that every ‘FOSS’ project should use GPLv3. The freedom I care about (because I think it’s very impactful and extremely important to preserve) is the freedom to use, know, share and modify software. Licensing is a useful tool to help ascertain that freedom, but beyond that, I consider the freedom to choose a licence nowhere near as important.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      > Me arguing for copyleft does not prevent users from choosing to use alternative software, either. It does encourage them, though (which I can only assume is your point). I also didn’t write that every ‘FOSS’ project should use GPLv3. You were arguing the project should not be MIT but GPL3 though. Why can't this project use whatever license they like? If not all FOSS project need be GPL3 but this one should, what are some examples of ones that you would be fine with being MIT?
      - F3nd0 3y ago
        > You were arguing the project should not be MIT but GPL3 though. I was arguing generally against permissive licences and in favour of copyleft, without pointing out a specific one, but as a matter of fact I do think that GPLv3 would be a much better choice for this project. (The thread’s OP did name specific licences, though.) > Why can't this project use whatever license they like? Why they can’t or why I argue they shouldn’t? Technically they’re able to choose any licence they like, and I argue it should be a copyleft one because I think preserving the four user freedoms is important and not accomplished with permissive licences. > If not all FOSS project need be GPL3 but this one should, what are some examples of ones that you would be fine with being MIT? All of the various MIT licences are similarly permissive, right? In that case, I think they make a decent choice for small and relatively simple programs which do not present a great amount of work and could be replicated or imitated without much effort. Programs like True, Hangman, Cowsay or short userscripts. But if you have a relatively large program, or a project where a great number of such smaller programs work together, I think they ought to be released under a copyleft licence. A new kernel is a good example of such a program, as are core utilities, terminal emulators, media players, web extensions, complex games, etc. So Maestro, seL4, Redox, GNU, Terminology, VLC, mpv, uBlock, Minetest and so on. I think weak copyleft licences (such as the MPL or the LGPL) can make a great option for programs with a good ethical reason to maximise their usage (including by non-free software). In my opinion, there's seldom a good reason to abandon copyleft altogether. (And as that may imply, it is my view that copyleft should be the default choice. When in doubt, protect your users’ four essential freedoms.)