4 ms·

> During the UNIX freebie days no one cared about Stalmman's freedoms. No one cares about their freedom until they are denied it.

pjmlp 3y ago
The rise of non-copyleft licenses proves that the only freedom most people care about is their wallet's. Most GPL software won't survive its authors, even Linux kernel remains to be seen when Linus et al are gone, and it gets taken over by newer generations VC driven.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- medo-bear 3y ago
  > The rise of non-copyleft licenses proves that the only freedom most people care about is their wallet's. This ignores how much freedom the wallet requirement takes away.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Apparently most people care more about being able to make a living out of selling software, as supermarkets are quite bad at taking Github stars, while others rather not pay for the work of others. Nothing related with Stalmman's freedoms.
    - medo-bear 3y ago
      Alot of people also make money standing on the shoulders of people who made free software
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        Which is why the only good free software license is the AGPLv3. https://web.archive.org/web/20120620103603/http://zedshaw.com/essays/why_i_gpl.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120620103603/http://zedshaw.co... > Why I (A/L)GPL > I want people to appreciate the work I’ve done and the value of what I’ve made. > Not pass on by waving “sucker” as they drive their fancy cars. Anything other than AGPLv3 is really just transferring wealth directly into the pockets of the beggar barons. https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/ https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/
        pabs3 3y ago
        There is no reason those barons can't make money on top of AGPLv3 software too, its easy to comply with if they thought anyone would bother to enforce the license. Also, if you have a desirable app that they want to make money off, they have the ability to just reimplement it from scratch, or make a protocol-compatible equivalent, so the license does not matter in the slightest to them.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Plenty of people seem to be making decent livings with GitHub Sponsors.
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        As much as street artists manage to get by.
- kragen 3y ago
  non-copyleft free-software licenses like the bsd license or the 'mit license' provide plenty of freedom in stallman's sense; you can study, copy, modify, and redistribute what they cover. when you're talking about people who only get wallet freedom, you're talking about free-tier proprietary licenses, shareware, free-for-noncommercial-use licenses, illegally copied software, that kind of thing. and while certainly there are lots of people using tinkercad or pirated windows, obviously those ecosystems don't have the vitality of blender, netbsd, and linux
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    It isn't the same, otherwise those licenses wouldn't exist, and be fully embraced by those that don't want to be tainted by freedom ideology.
    - kragen 3y ago
      it isn't the same, no

pjmlp 3y ago

The rise of non-copyleft licenses proves that the only freedom most people care about is their wallet's. Most GPL software won't survive its authors, even Linux kernel remains to be seen when Linus et al are gone, and it gets taken over by newer generations VC driven.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
medo-bear 3y ago
> The rise of non-copyleft licenses proves that the only freedom most people care about is their wallet's. This ignores how much freedom the wallet requirement takes away.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Apparently most people care more about being able to make a living out of selling software, as supermarkets are quite bad at taking Github stars, while others rather not pay for the work of others. Nothing related with Stalmman's freedoms.
  - medo-bear 3y ago
    Alot of people also make money standing on the shoulders of people who made free software
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Which is why the only good free software license is the AGPLv3. https://web.archive.org/web/20120620103603/http://zedshaw.com/essays/why_i_gpl.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120620103603/http://zedshaw.co... > Why I (A/L)GPL > I want people to appreciate the work I’ve done and the value of what I’ve made. > Not pass on by waving “sucker” as they drive their fancy cars. Anything other than AGPLv3 is really just transferring wealth directly into the pockets of the beggar barons. https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/ https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/
      - pabs3 3y ago
        There is no reason those barons can't make money on top of AGPLv3 software too, its easy to comply with if they thought anyone would bother to enforce the license. Also, if you have a desirable app that they want to make money off, they have the ability to just reimplement it from scratch, or make a protocol-compatible equivalent, so the license does not matter in the slightest to them.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Plenty of people seem to be making decent livings with GitHub Sponsors.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      As much as street artists manage to get by.
kragen 3y ago
non-copyleft free-software licenses like the bsd license or the 'mit license' provide plenty of freedom in stallman's sense; you can study, copy, modify, and redistribute what they cover. when you're talking about people who only get wallet freedom, you're talking about free-tier proprietary licenses, shareware, free-for-noncommercial-use licenses, illegally copied software, that kind of thing. and while certainly there are lots of people using tinkercad or pirated windows, obviously those ecosystems don't have the vitality of blender, netbsd, and linux
- pjmlp 3y ago
  It isn't the same, otherwise those licenses wouldn't exist, and be fully embraced by those that don't want to be tainted by freedom ideology.
  - kragen 3y ago
    it isn't the same, no