4 ms·
This is why I try to license my personal stuff gpl or agpl still. At the end of the day, I don't want people using it or modifying it that don't release the sou
by zanny 13y ago
This is why I try to license my personal stuff gpl or agpl still. At the end of the day, I don't want people using it or modifying it that don't release the source, even if it is less used as a result.
The article brings up two camps - gpl vs mit / bsd, and while I use the gpl now on the precedent that the copyright situation is so bad it needs some counter-pressure wherever I can place it, I hope in the long term the outcome is the abolition of copyright entirely. But I put stuff under GPL now because the ultra-restrictive copyrights on proprietary software and their license terms harm creativity so much using the system to force freedom is better than ignoring the problem entirely. To me, at least.
The goal of the GPL is user freedom, in an age when the copyright holder / developer (not always the same person) holds all the cards.
- tjaerv 13y agoThe real counterweight is to release your code into the public domain, opting out of the copyright industry's game altogether. See http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/
- icebraining 13y agoYou're not opting out of the copyright industry's game; you can't, it's the law. All you're doing is keeping on rolling the dice, while refusing to take title deed cards for yourself and keeping paying rent.
- japhyr 13y agoI just started a project that allows teachers, educators, and interested parties to create, maintain, and fork education standards. Basically, bring long-standing software development concepts to education. After a brief discussion on irc yesterday I went with the AGPL. I want to encourage collaboration, but I don't want some ed tech startup with vc funding to use this code. I did put a note in the readme that if anyone has a good reason to want an MIT license, I'd be open to reconsidering the license. But I can't see a good reason at this point.
- jallmann 13y ago> I don't want some ed tech startup with vc funding to use this code. Startups would still be free to use it as long as they abide by the license. With the AGPLv1, they have to publish their changes. Also, if the project offers a facility for end-users to obtain the source code, it can't be removed, so you can ensure the source remains available, whether modified or not. AGPLv3 projects must offer the source no matter what.
- japhyr 13y agoThat's exactly what I want. I don't mind people using the code, I just want the changes re-released.