3 ms·
And yet, those BSD-licensed projects now have users who cannot fix problems in the BSD-licensed code they use, because of this more liberal licensing. That is w
by inklesspen 17y ago
And yet, those BSD-licensed projects now have users who cannot fix problems in the BSD-licensed code they use, because of this more liberal licensing. That is what I meant about the code remaining free. The user suffers under a less free regime.
- swolchok 17y agoGPL-licensed projects also have users who cannot fix problems in the GPL-licensed code they use, because of their complete lack of technical training.
- SwellJoe 17y agoThat's just silly. Just because you don't want to work on your car yourself, doesn't mean you ought to choose one with the hood welded shut. It should be obvious that "can fix" is short-hand for "can caused to be fixed, either doing it yourself, or by cajoling or paying someone else to do it". Without the source, there is no option to fix it. I'm not an Open Source or Free Software extremist, by any means, but there are real benefits to having the source code to important software for any user, even those who have never opened a text editor or seen a line of source code. It may not matter for video games and the software that runs your TV. But, there are a lot of areas where it should be the single most important factor in the decision-making process, even if the decision makers don't realize it. Government, for example, probably ought to exclusively run on Open Source software, or at least only buy from vendors that provide the source and a license that allows in-house fixes in the event the company goes under or is unable or unwilling to fix security vulnerabilities or interop problems. Many large companies insist on "dead man switch" arrangements wherein they get the source if the software vendor goes under. A free software license is just the logical conclusion.