4 ms·

With all due respect I do not think that makes any sense. You’re creating this metaphor with the government, but this isn’t the government. In the end freedom

With all due respect I do not think that makes any sense. You’re creating this metaphor with the government, but this isn’t the government. In the end freedom is a spectrum and you are free to do more with MIT than LGPL. Even if someone forked MIT and made it closed source that does not in any way stop or restrict those who prefer the project pre-fork. Indeed, that is the very logic that has made Redict possible to begin with. This is the illustration of why MIT is maximally free. Suppose the EU said code must be closed source, and you must distribute encrypted binaries. In this hypothetical it wouldn’t be possible to use Redict at all. This is another example of why the MIT, and permissiveness in general, is superior. —- As an aside your freedom of the press example is yet another reason for permissiveness. The government isn’t permissive by default, which is why “freedom of the press” is even a thing.

drewdevault 3y ago
Governments, businesses, they're all just institutions and I see no reason not to use them as illustrative examples. The MIT maximally enables exploitation; copyleft maximally enables freedom. From the point of a proprietary fork of a permissively licensed project onwards, users of the proprietary fork enjoy fewer freedoms than before. You are advocating for freedoms for the few (business owners making proprietary forks of free software for profit) at the expense of the freedom of many (everyone else). Redict would also be possible if Redis used a copyleft license. The space for Redict to exist is not afforded to us because of the use of a permissive license in some way that Redict denies to anyone else through the use of a copyleft license.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  I really don’t understand you. Even if there was a closed source fork, users would still be free to use the open source one. There is no restriction or diminishing of options. In fact, now there are even more options and thus more freedom. In any case we can agree to disagree.
  - drewdevault 3y ago
    I think you're missing the reciprocal nature of the arrangement here. Since you seem to assert that it's acceptable to release software under a proprietary license (and I agree with you, most of the time), you must believe that the authors of a work have a right to distribute it under whatever terms they like. So: is it appropriate for someone to say "I am willing to offer my labor to this collaborative project, and release the source code for free, and allow people to build from my work, under the condition that they extend the same rights back to everyone else"? It's much more generous than what proprietary software offers, after all. Why is copyleft subject to more scrutiny than proprietary software for you? You suggest that permissive licenses are better because they allow permissive derivatives of the software, which suggests that permissive derivatives are good. But copyleft derivatives are... not good? Copyleft offers more freedoms than proprietary software. Moreover, this line of reasoning completely disregards the social contract. Many people worked on, used, popularized Redis under the presumption that they were participating in a collaborative effort from which all participants would benefit, only -- surprise -- now the trademark holder has changed the terms so that only they benefit from a product of which, by objective measures, 80% was made by the community.

drewdevault 3y ago

Governments, businesses, they're all just institutions and I see no reason not to use them as illustrative examples. The MIT maximally enables exploitation; copyleft maximally enables freedom. From the point of a proprietary fork of a permissively licensed project onwards, users of the proprietary fork enjoy fewer freedoms than before. You are advocating for freedoms for the few (business owners making proprietary forks of free software for profit) at the expense of the freedom of many (everyone else). Redict would also be possible if Redis used a copyleft license. The space for Redict to exist is not afforded to us because of the use of a permissive license in some way that Redict denies to anyone else through the use of a copyleft license.

endisneigh 3y ago
I really don’t understand you. Even if there was a closed source fork, users would still be free to use the open source one. There is no restriction or diminishing of options. In fact, now there are even more options and thus more freedom. In any case we can agree to disagree.
- drewdevault 3y ago
  I think you're missing the reciprocal nature of the arrangement here. Since you seem to assert that it's acceptable to release software under a proprietary license (and I agree with you, most of the time), you must believe that the authors of a work have a right to distribute it under whatever terms they like. So: is it appropriate for someone to say "I am willing to offer my labor to this collaborative project, and release the source code for free, and allow people to build from my work, under the condition that they extend the same rights back to everyone else"? It's much more generous than what proprietary software offers, after all. Why is copyleft subject to more scrutiny than proprietary software for you? You suggest that permissive licenses are better because they allow permissive derivatives of the software, which suggests that permissive derivatives are good. But copyleft derivatives are... not good? Copyleft offers more freedoms than proprietary software. Moreover, this line of reasoning completely disregards the social contract. Many people worked on, used, popularized Redis under the presumption that they were participating in a collaborative effort from which all participants would benefit, only -- surprise -- now the trademark holder has changed the terms so that only they benefit from a product of which, by objective measures, 80% was made by the community.