2 ms·

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

by 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?
    - jraph 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." You are mixing two different users. FreeBSD user A enjoys software freedom. macOS user B doesn't. A and B are different people. And notably, the release of macOS didn't make FreeBSD disappear, so A still fully enjoys their freedom even though B doesn't with the downstream software (but could with the upstream software as well). If you are mixing user A and user B, your mental model of this stuff is not clear and reasoning with it is going to be difficult and frustrating. And it makes you reach incorrect conclusions such as "permissive licenses are less free for the users than copyleft licenses". > So we're agreeing that being fine with a restriction doesn't necessarily mean anyone has "lost the direction" of free software? Laws are supposed to protect individual and collective freedom and interests. They do this by putting limits on what you could do that would prevent others from enjoying their own freedom. (of course, I know we are far from this ideal; also laws aren't perfect and issues should be fought against - it's actually, in practice, a constant fight because different (groups of) people have different interests and priorities - but that's another concern and mixing concerns makes things hard to reason about) License restrictions that compromise on software freedom are simply not comparable to whatever it takes to make a society work. They are not making a tradeoff for your own good as a user. They are benefiting the software provider at the cost of the user's freedom.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        I'm not mixing up users A and B. Let me try phrasing it better. MIT does not give software freedom to all users of the code. A huge number of users get excluded in practice, far more users than this clause in the liquibase license. > Laws are supposed to protect individual and collective freedom and interests. They do this by putting limits on what you could do that would prevent others from enjoying their own freedom. I'm not sure where you're going with this when my example was NDAs. NDAs aren't there to protect freedoms, they only remove freedom. Laws enforce them, but in the same way that laws enforce license restrictions.

by jraph 1y ago

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?
  - jraph 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." You are mixing two different users. FreeBSD user A enjoys software freedom. macOS user B doesn't. A and B are different people. And notably, the release of macOS didn't make FreeBSD disappear, so A still fully enjoys their freedom even though B doesn't with the downstream software (but could with the upstream software as well). If you are mixing user A and user B, your mental model of this stuff is not clear and reasoning with it is going to be difficult and frustrating. And it makes you reach incorrect conclusions such as "permissive licenses are less free for the users than copyleft licenses". > So we're agreeing that being fine with a restriction doesn't necessarily mean anyone has "lost the direction" of free software? Laws are supposed to protect individual and collective freedom and interests. They do this by putting limits on what you could do that would prevent others from enjoying their own freedom. (of course, I know we are far from this ideal; also laws aren't perfect and issues should be fought against - it's actually, in practice, a constant fight because different (groups of) people have different interests and priorities - but that's another concern and mixing concerns makes things hard to reason about) License restrictions that compromise on software freedom are simply not comparable to whatever it takes to make a society work. They are not making a tradeoff for your own good as a user. They are benefiting the software provider at the cost of the user's freedom.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      I'm not mixing up users A and B. Let me try phrasing it better. MIT does not give software freedom to all users of the code. A huge number of users get excluded in practice, far more users than this clause in the liquibase license. > Laws are supposed to protect individual and collective freedom and interests. They do this by putting limits on what you could do that would prevent others from enjoying their own freedom. I'm not sure where you're going with this when my example was NDAs. NDAs aren't there to protect freedoms, they only remove freedom. Laws enforce them, but in the same way that laws enforce license restrictions.