4 ms·

If you base your opinions on compromises and always making tradeoffs on your core values, you've lost your direction. What do we do now? > It's free for human

by jraph 1y ago

If you base your opinions on compromises and always making tradeoffs on your core values, you've lost your direction. What do we do now? > It's free for humans and 99.999% of businesses Nope. "Free" has specific meaning in this context, this qualifier doesn't apply here. It's the whole point. If you believe it applies, you've fundamentally misunderstood the free software definition and what's at stake for the free software movement. More specifically, the qualifier is not relative to a specific entity and what freedom it actually needs / uses at some given point in time. I'm certainly for fundamental freedoms like the freedom of the press, even if I'm not myself a journalist. To go further with the comparison, there's nothing in being against compromising on the freedom of the press that's blindness or being black and white (or maybe it's being black and white, but I can't see how it would be wrong).

Dylan16807 1y ago
Everything is a compromise. GPL versus MIT is a compromise either way. Both are more free than the other. So don't tell me there's such a thing as fully free and that nothing else matters. > I'm certainly for fundamental freedoms like the freedom of the press, even if I'm not myself a journalist. Freedom of the press has more restrictions. In particular violating an NDA in your press activities is somewhat similar in how it affects few people and is time-limited.
- jraph 1y ago
  I don't follow. GPL and MIT fully fulfill the exigences of the free software definition, there's no compromise here. Choosing between GPL and MIT may involve compromises, but we are talking about something else, you are moving the goalposts here. (note: I kept updating my previous comment, probably while you were writing this, sorry for this) (edit: ah, you noticed) > Freedom of the press has more restrictions. In particular violating an NDA in your press activities is somewhat similar in how it affects few people and is time-limited. Violating an NDA is a matter of law and contracts that can equally apply to software, it's not at the level of the fundamental right or at the level of the license. If you are speaking about protecting one's source, then it's orthogonal (and probably also an important mechanism for) freedom of the press.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    MIT gives less freedom to the user. GPL gives less freedom to the dev. I'm not moving goalposts, those are both very important and you can't maximize both. > it's not at the level of the fundamental right or at the level of the license. I would say the ability to run a competing business within two years is less fundamental than the ability to talk about what you saw at your former job. Also what are you saying about "not at the level"? It overrides the fundamental right, but people accept that.
    - jraph 1y ago
      > MIT gives less freedom to the user. No. Someone can use some MIT licensed software for any purpose and can strictly do anything with it that the GPL would allow. Just as free. However, I do agree that permissive licenses like the MIT allows someone to build proprietary software with the code, and the users won't enjoy software freedom with that result. That would be the reason why I wouldn't license my software under permissive license except for specific cases. One could argue the MIT actually gives more freedom to the user: they can, with a MIT source code, build and distribute a proprietary derivative. Of course, this doesn't mean this additional freedom is desirable. > Also what are you saying about "not at the level"? It overrides the fundamental right, but people accept that. Yeah, just like laws limit your freedom to run free software for any purpose. You, for instance, can't legally take /bin/ls with you to go kill someone even if its license itself doesn't explicitly forbid it. I'm pretty fine with this. I have some feeling we do agree that freedom is never absolute and kinda argue past each others.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        > the users won't enjoy software freedom with that result That's the part I was talking about. So I don't know why you started your post with "No." > I'm pretty fine with this. Cool. And I'm fine with some other restrictions. So we're agreeing that being fine with a restriction doesn't necessarily mean anyone has "lost the direction" of free software? And instead we can talk about the specific dangers of a restriction without reflexive rejection?

by jraph 1y ago

Dylan16807 1y ago

Everything is a compromise. GPL versus MIT is a compromise either way. Both are more free than the other. So don't tell me there's such a thing as fully free and that nothing else matters. > I'm certainly for fundamental freedoms like the freedom of the press, even if I'm not myself a journalist. Freedom of the press has more restrictions. In particular violating an NDA in your press activities is somewhat similar in how it affects few people and is time-limited.

jraph 1y ago
I don't follow. GPL and MIT fully fulfill the exigences of the free software definition, there's no compromise here. Choosing between GPL and MIT may involve compromises, but we are talking about something else, you are moving the goalposts here. (note: I kept updating my previous comment, probably while you were writing this, sorry for this) (edit: ah, you noticed) > Freedom of the press has more restrictions. In particular violating an NDA in your press activities is somewhat similar in how it affects few people and is time-limited. Violating an NDA is a matter of law and contracts that can equally apply to software, it's not at the level of the fundamental right or at the level of the license. If you are speaking about protecting one's source, then it's orthogonal (and probably also an important mechanism for) freedom of the press.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  MIT gives less freedom to the user. GPL gives less freedom to the dev. I'm not moving goalposts, those are both very important and you can't maximize both. > it's not at the level of the fundamental right or at the level of the license. I would say the ability to run a competing business within two years is less fundamental than the ability to talk about what you saw at your former job. Also what are you saying about "not at the level"? It overrides the fundamental right, but people accept that.
  - jraph 1y ago
    > MIT gives less freedom to the user. No. Someone can use some MIT licensed software for any purpose and can strictly do anything with it that the GPL would allow. Just as free. However, I do agree that permissive licenses like the MIT allows someone to build proprietary software with the code, and the users won't enjoy software freedom with that result. That would be the reason why I wouldn't license my software under permissive license except for specific cases. One could argue the MIT actually gives more freedom to the user: they can, with a MIT source code, build and distribute a proprietary derivative. Of course, this doesn't mean this additional freedom is desirable. > Also what are you saying about "not at the level"? It overrides the fundamental right, but people accept that. Yeah, just like laws limit your freedom to run free software for any purpose. You, for instance, can't legally take /bin/ls with you to go kill someone even if its license itself doesn't explicitly forbid it. I'm pretty fine with this. I have some feeling we do agree that freedom is never absolute and kinda argue past each others.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      > the users won't enjoy software freedom with that result That's the part I was talking about. So I don't know why you started your post with "No." > I'm pretty fine with this. Cool. And I'm fine with some other restrictions. So we're agreeing that being fine with a restriction doesn't necessarily mean anyone has "lost the direction" of free software? And instead we can talk about the specific dangers of a restriction without reflexive rejection?