4 ms·

> I don't work for free for capitalists. What's your opinion on [cuck licensing](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48708655 https://news.ycombinator.com/ite

• nekusar 3mo ago
  People who choose MIT or BSD licenses etm are idiots. I'm staunchly for AGPL3, and harsh and strong enforcement actions against violators. You know, what the companies would do to us. Tit for tat.
  • genewitch 3mo ago
    i like giving stuff away for free, but if it's tenable for the market i'll look at agpl3. The thing that would break my spirit is if something i made was used, for free, by a company to infringe on privacy or show interstitial ads. I used to not care, now i do.
    • microgpt 3mo ago
      I think the most moral position is reciprocity: I'll give you free stuff if you pay it back/forward. If you want to lock it down then too bad, I locked it down first so pay me. Which is basically the situation you get from [A]GPL. You still have the option to offer a different license in exchange for money.
    • nekusar 3mo ago
      That's why the Affero GPL3. Stops tivo-ization. And stops app-ification (making a GPL3 into a webapp and significant changes, but not sharing as well). But most of the FLOSS orgs (FSF, etc) don't want blood from violator companies. Instead they just want mealy-mouth halfassed responses that amount to 'open the source'. I remember what happened to copyright violators who copied Metallica and Britnry Spears back in the early 2000's. Fucking kids got hit with $4000 settlements or $135000 lawsuits. That's the type of vigor and destructiveness I want FLOSS orgs to go after for-profit copyright violators.