4 ms·

It's like this. You have different ethics than I do or pbsdp does. We believe it's unethical to impose restrictions on developers, and if that means we can't

It's like this. You have different ethics than I do or pbsdp does. We believe it's unethical to impose restrictions on developers, and if that means we can't guarantee the freedom of users then so be it. You don't have a problem with imposing restrictions on developers (at least restrictions that you like), but you do believe it's unethical not to guarantee the freedoms of users. There's no way to resolve the conflict. We just have incompatible values and understandings about what sharing means. Our values are more liberal (the FSF uses the word permissive), so that means that you're free to exist in our world. We'd like to be part of your world as developers, but we aren't willing to embrace your restrictions.

mike-cardwell 13y ago
Absolutely. Like I said, I have no problem with other people choosing other licenses which meet their requirements. My requirements are different. The GPL is most appropriate for myself.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  I don't choose a license to meet my requirements. I choose a license to meet everybody's requirements. So when you don't choose a license that meets everybody's requirements, it makes me question the value of the freedoms it provides, and I end up wishing you'd chosen something more open.
  - mike-cardwell 13y ago
    It's funny that you think your license choice meets everybodies "requirements" and mine doesn't. I think the exact opposite: I think yours meets the requirements of yourself and other developers. In comparison, I think my choice meets the requirements of humanity. Especially in the long run. You wish I'd chosen differently. I also wish you had chosen differently, as currently from my point of view, you're helping the propagation and spread of closed source software. Simply: I don't want my code to be used in closed source software, so I can't use your license. That choice is simply not open to me.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      The pros of GPL software address the cons of closed source software, and the pros of closed source software address the cons of GPL software. So by choosing the BSD I'm actually helping spread both of these things, because they can both incorporate my code. It's a neutral position philosophically.

mike-cardwell 13y ago

Absolutely. Like I said, I have no problem with other people choosing other licenses which meet their requirements. My requirements are different. The GPL is most appropriate for myself.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
I don't choose a license to meet my requirements. I choose a license to meet everybody's requirements. So when you don't choose a license that meets everybody's requirements, it makes me question the value of the freedoms it provides, and I end up wishing you'd chosen something more open.
- mike-cardwell 13y ago
  It's funny that you think your license choice meets everybodies "requirements" and mine doesn't. I think the exact opposite: I think yours meets the requirements of yourself and other developers. In comparison, I think my choice meets the requirements of humanity. Especially in the long run. You wish I'd chosen differently. I also wish you had chosen differently, as currently from my point of view, you're helping the propagation and spread of closed source software. Simply: I don't want my code to be used in closed source software, so I can't use your license. That choice is simply not open to me.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    The pros of GPL software address the cons of closed source software, and the pros of closed source software address the cons of GPL software. So by choosing the BSD I'm actually helping spread both of these things, because they can both incorporate my code. It's a neutral position philosophically.