4 ms·

That's a whole heap of very controversial topics. I'm very curious how it will turn out as I favor BSD/ISC over GPL for the same basic reason as well : In t

by eksith 13y ago

That's a whole heap of very controversial topics. I'm very curious how it will turn out as I favor BSD/ISC over GPL for the same basic reason as well : In the absence of universal receiver, go to universal donor (BSD/PD)

spacelizard 13y ago
That analogy is a bit flawed. People who can't legally combine the GPL with other projects had to make the conscious decision of choosing an incompatible license. If you acknowledge the idea that there are no non-universal recipients or donors in software, then it makes more sense to use copyleft.
- eksith 13y ago
  I'm not too sure what you're trying to say here. "If you acknowledge the idea that there are no non-universal recipients or donors in software..." ? My perspective is that of a donor; not a receiver. I want to ensure that what I create has as few hindrances as possible in terms of adoptability and the last thing I need is the license (which has no bearing whatsoever on the actual functionality of the work to begin with) to get in the way. And I've seen it get in the way of plenty of other past projects.
  - spacelizard 13y ago
    If you release your software under copyleft, and someone else can't use that in another project because they chose an incompatible license, the "hindrance" is entirely their fault, not yours. Now if someone takes your permissively licensed code and makes it proprietary, THAT is a real hindrance to users of that software, and while it may not be your fault directly, you had the power to stop it because you are the copyright holder and could have copylefted it. So permissively licensed software actually has more potential than copyrighted software in allowing a license to "get in the way."
    - eksith 13y ago
      I want to give people choice to contribute back. 'Do as you please and leave the copyright' vs. 'Do as you please, leave copyright, distribution requires sources etc...' Which is more permissive? "Permissive" in your sense of the word is entirely a misnomer since it's effectively a permission whitelist not a blacklist. This is getting to be entirely repetitious since I've had this discussion many times before. I'll let an old post explain why I can never in good conscience put GPL on anything I do : http://eksith.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/gpl-vs-bsd http://eksith.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/gpl-vs-bsd
      - Nursie 13y ago
        One persons restriction on what developers can do is another persons "Never able to access the source to devices I own" I'm sure you have your reasons for disliking the GPL. Many of us love it for those very same reasons, and for the freedom it grants to everyone, not just the immediate recipient.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        The GPL and proprietary licenses are both about controlling what other people can do, just in opposite ways. They each address the fear that other people won't play nice. The BSD license sits in the middle and is about trusting people to make good decisions. The trust extends so far that BSD code can be converted to the GPL or a proprietary license.
        mindslight 13y ago
        Do embedded device vendors deserve our trust to make good decisions ? They don't display outright malice, but they are institutionally set up to abandon software after a few years, as software maintenance is only ever a cost center. Unfortunately management doesn't care about this aspect of their business, and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to a world of user-upgradeable software.
        13y ago

by eksith 13y ago

spacelizard 13y ago

That analogy is a bit flawed. People who can't legally combine the GPL with other projects had to make the conscious decision of choosing an incompatible license. If you acknowledge the idea that there are no non-universal recipients or donors in software, then it makes more sense to use copyleft.

eksith 13y ago
I'm not too sure what you're trying to say here. "If you acknowledge the idea that there are no non-universal recipients or donors in software..." ? My perspective is that of a donor; not a receiver. I want to ensure that what I create has as few hindrances as possible in terms of adoptability and the last thing I need is the license (which has no bearing whatsoever on the actual functionality of the work to begin with) to get in the way. And I've seen it get in the way of plenty of other past projects.
- spacelizard 13y ago
  If you release your software under copyleft, and someone else can't use that in another project because they chose an incompatible license, the "hindrance" is entirely their fault, not yours. Now if someone takes your permissively licensed code and makes it proprietary, THAT is a real hindrance to users of that software, and while it may not be your fault directly, you had the power to stop it because you are the copyright holder and could have copylefted it. So permissively licensed software actually has more potential than copyrighted software in allowing a license to "get in the way."
  - eksith 13y ago
    I want to give people choice to contribute back. 'Do as you please and leave the copyright' vs. 'Do as you please, leave copyright, distribution requires sources etc...' Which is more permissive? "Permissive" in your sense of the word is entirely a misnomer since it's effectively a permission whitelist not a blacklist. This is getting to be entirely repetitious since I've had this discussion many times before. I'll let an old post explain why I can never in good conscience put GPL on anything I do : http://eksith.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/gpl-vs-bsd http://eksith.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/gpl-vs-bsd
    - Nursie 13y ago
      One persons restriction on what developers can do is another persons "Never able to access the source to devices I own" I'm sure you have your reasons for disliking the GPL. Many of us love it for those very same reasons, and for the freedom it grants to everyone, not just the immediate recipient.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        The GPL and proprietary licenses are both about controlling what other people can do, just in opposite ways. They each address the fear that other people won't play nice. The BSD license sits in the middle and is about trusting people to make good decisions. The trust extends so far that BSD code can be converted to the GPL or a proprietary license.
        mindslight 13y ago
        Do embedded device vendors deserve our trust to make good decisions ? They don't display outright malice, but they are institutionally set up to abandon software after a few years, as software maintenance is only ever a cost center. Unfortunately management doesn't care about this aspect of their business, and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to a world of user-upgradeable software.
        13y ago