5 ms·

> picking a copyleft license must mean that you care about user freedoms [...] they're giving up on their principles This is a personal bias and disregards oth

> picking a copyleft license must mean that you care about user freedoms [...] they're giving up on their principles This is a personal bias and disregards others' definition of true do-whatever-you-want freedom. Different project owners may think differently on what free means and alter the license to respect their principles (and may consider copyleft to be the restrictive/anti-free mistake made early on based on these same kinds of personal biases). And many contributors don't really care what the project owner does with their code and the CLA lets them delegate responsibility.

immibis 2y ago
It's been popular in the last decade and a half to think that freedom is when everyone, including massive corporations, can do anything they want with your software, including closing it and taking away everyone else's freedom. Don't people think it would be better if they couldn't do that? People who value attention over principles are known as "pick mes" apparently.
- chii 2y ago
  > including closing it and taking away everyone else's freedom. unless the corp owns the rights, they cannot "close it", nor take away everyone else's freedom. The old version that was open source licensed is always going to be available. Unless you're talking about the additions these corporations made, which they keep closed, and charge you for it. But if they are able to charge for it, they deserve it.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Embrace, extend, extinguish - AGPL makes it harder and SSPL even harder still.
  - sgarland 2y ago
    > But if they are able to charge for it, they deserve it. This is an extremely black-and-white view. If I make a competing product to you and it’s superior to yours, then yes, I deserve profits (though of course consumers may still choose yours for a litany of other reasons). If a trillion-dollar corporation becomes a competitor, that’s not exactly fair. They can, if they want, spin up an entire team dedicated to the product, and by sheer numbers, they will win. Is it legal? Yes. Is it ethical? That’s subjective.

immibis 2y ago

It's been popular in the last decade and a half to think that freedom is when everyone, including massive corporations, can do anything they want with your software, including closing it and taking away everyone else's freedom. Don't people think it would be better if they couldn't do that? People who value attention over principles are known as "pick mes" apparently.

chii 2y ago
> including closing it and taking away everyone else's freedom. unless the corp owns the rights, they cannot "close it", nor take away everyone else's freedom. The old version that was open source licensed is always going to be available. Unless you're talking about the additions these corporations made, which they keep closed, and charge you for it. But if they are able to charge for it, they deserve it.
- immibis 2y ago
  Embrace, extend, extinguish - AGPL makes it harder and SSPL even harder still.
- sgarland 2y ago
  > But if they are able to charge for it, they deserve it. This is an extremely black-and-white view. If I make a competing product to you and it’s superior to yours, then yes, I deserve profits (though of course consumers may still choose yours for a litany of other reasons). If a trillion-dollar corporation becomes a competitor, that’s not exactly fair. They can, if they want, spin up an entire team dedicated to the product, and by sheer numbers, they will win. Is it legal? Yes. Is it ethical? That’s subjective.