19 ms·

I expected a permissive license or an open-core strategy to monetize proprietary components and not be friendly with the free software community, but that doesn

I expected a permissive license or an open-core strategy to monetize proprietary components and not be friendly with the free software community, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. So you don't consider a permissive license to be friendly with the free software community, or is that a typo?

yuvadam 13y ago
Well, yeah. In certain circles, the permissive licenses (MIT/BSD/etc.) are seen as detrimental to the free software movement.
- misnome 13y ago
  Whereas, in other circles, the GPL is seen as detrimental to the free software movement.
  - davexunit 13y ago
    You will find that those circles are outside of the free software movement.
    - Smudge 13y ago
      No True Scotsman then, eh?
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        No. By definition, advocates of free software are advocates of the GPL.
        chc 13y ago
        I don't see why. The "permissive" licenses like BSD and Apache are also free software licenses — they're even certified as such by the FSF.
        stcredzero 13y ago
        The GPL is restrictive. It protects certain freedoms at the expense of others.
        nkuttler 13y ago
        BSD is restrictive. It protects certain freedoms at the expense of others. It all depends on pespective. GPL has more freedom for users, BSD for developers. Both are valid licenses that do different things. Calling one restrictive just shows that you view this from one side only.
        asdasf 13y ago
        >BSD is restrictive. It protects certain freedoms at the expense of others. It is objectively and unequivocally less restrictive than the GPL. All it restricts is your ability to claim it is your own code. The GPL adds several more restrictions. Thus it is more restrictive. Arguing that you think those restrictions serve a purpose does not mean you can claim they are not restrictions. Lame straw man crap like pretending anyone ever said the GPL wasn't "valid" doesn't belong in a reasoned conversation.
        nkuttler 13y ago
        > All it restricts is your ability to claim it is your own code. Neither of those licenses allows you to claim some code is "your own". Copyright still applies. > The GPL adds several more restrictions. I can easily rephrase that as GPL adds more freedoms. Your restriction is somebody else's freedom. A matter of perspective. > does not mean you can claim they are not restrictions I can claim anything I like, and I provide a reasoning. > Lame straw man crap like pretending anyone ever said the GPL wasn't "valid" doesn't belong in a reasoned conversation. Except that I never said that. Oh the irony.
        asdasf 13y ago
        >Neither of those licenses allows you to claim some code is "your own" This is a completely irrelevant statement. What was your intended purpose for making it? >I can easily rephrase that as GPL adds more freedoms You could, but it would what is known as "lying". I could easily say that the sky is green too, but that doesn't mean it is. >Your restriction is somebody else's freedom No, restrictions are restrictions. Words have meanings, and you don't get to just pretend they mean the opposite of what they actually mean. The GPL imposes additional restrictions. You like those restrictions because of their consequences. That is fine. But that does not make them cease to be restrictions. >I can claim anything I like Sure, but you can't expect anyone to treat you like a rational adult if you make obviously false claims and say "I can do whatever I want!" as a rationale for it.
        jordigh 13y ago
        No, OpenBSD also likes to advocate for free software, e.g. grep for instances of "free software" here: http://openbsd.org/lyrics.html http://openbsd.org/lyrics.html However, as you well know, all BSDs really hate the GPL.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - falcolas 13y ago
    I think you're confusing developers who want to use open source software in closed source applications with the free software movement. To stereotype: GPL == best for users BSD == best for developers
    - btown 13y ago
      However, many (nontechnical) users just want software that's free (as in beer) and works well. Therefore, what's best for developers (i.e. what attracts developers) is also seen as good for these users.
    - sillysaurus2 13y ago
      As a game developer, you're hurting our entire industry by shutting us out of using your software. And in the end, we'll find a way, with or without you. We'd rather stand with you, but we can't go near GPL'd code. You know CodeCombat recently open sourced their game? They're basically the first gamedev company in the history of gamedev to do that -- a non-indie company who open sourced their current-gen tech. It's a good idea, and I hope more companies follow. So, times are changing, but in the meantime your strict adherence to "GPL license == good guys; MIT license == bad guys" is detrimental to pretty much an entire community of programmers. (Programmers with zero options; they're not going to ragequit the gamedev industry just because engines are closed source.)
      - _delirium 13y ago
        Why would I want to give free labor to massively wealthy AAA studios who don't want to give back anything? If they want to use my code in their proprietary products, they can pay me to license it, just like they expect others to pay them. I don't see how it's "standing with me" to use my code to make the next Madden, without giving back either code or cash.
        teamonkey 13y ago
        > massively wealthy AAA studios Straw man. > who don't want to give back anything Straw man.

yuvadam 13y ago

Well, yeah. In certain circles, the permissive licenses (MIT/BSD/etc.) are seen as detrimental to the free software movement.

misnome 13y ago
Whereas, in other circles, the GPL is seen as detrimental to the free software movement.
- davexunit 13y ago
  You will find that those circles are outside of the free software movement.
  - Smudge 13y ago
    No True Scotsman then, eh?
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      No. By definition, advocates of free software are advocates of the GPL.
      - chc 13y ago
        I don't see why. The "permissive" licenses like BSD and Apache are also free software licenses — they're even certified as such by the FSF.
        stcredzero 13y ago
        The GPL is restrictive. It protects certain freedoms at the expense of others.
        nkuttler 13y ago
        BSD is restrictive. It protects certain freedoms at the expense of others. It all depends on pespective. GPL has more freedom for users, BSD for developers. Both are valid licenses that do different things. Calling one restrictive just shows that you view this from one side only.
        asdasf 13y ago
        >BSD is restrictive. It protects certain freedoms at the expense of others. It is objectively and unequivocally less restrictive than the GPL. All it restricts is your ability to claim it is your own code. The GPL adds several more restrictions. Thus it is more restrictive. Arguing that you think those restrictions serve a purpose does not mean you can claim they are not restrictions. Lame straw man crap like pretending anyone ever said the GPL wasn't "valid" doesn't belong in a reasoned conversation.
        nkuttler 13y ago
        > All it restricts is your ability to claim it is your own code. Neither of those licenses allows you to claim some code is "your own". Copyright still applies. > The GPL adds several more restrictions. I can easily rephrase that as GPL adds more freedoms. Your restriction is somebody else's freedom. A matter of perspective. > does not mean you can claim they are not restrictions I can claim anything I like, and I provide a reasoning. > Lame straw man crap like pretending anyone ever said the GPL wasn't "valid" doesn't belong in a reasoned conversation. Except that I never said that. Oh the irony.
        asdasf 13y ago
        >Neither of those licenses allows you to claim some code is "your own" This is a completely irrelevant statement. What was your intended purpose for making it? >I can easily rephrase that as GPL adds more freedoms You could, but it would what is known as "lying". I could easily say that the sky is green too, but that doesn't mean it is. >Your restriction is somebody else's freedom No, restrictions are restrictions. Words have meanings, and you don't get to just pretend they mean the opposite of what they actually mean. The GPL imposes additional restrictions. You like those restrictions because of their consequences. That is fine. But that does not make them cease to be restrictions. >I can claim anything I like Sure, but you can't expect anyone to treat you like a rational adult if you make obviously false claims and say "I can do whatever I want!" as a rationale for it.
      - jordigh 13y ago
        No, OpenBSD also likes to advocate for free software, e.g. grep for instances of "free software" here: http://openbsd.org/lyrics.html http://openbsd.org/lyrics.html However, as you well know, all BSDs really hate the GPL.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- falcolas 13y ago
  I think you're confusing developers who want to use open source software in closed source applications with the free software movement. To stereotype: GPL == best for users BSD == best for developers
  - btown 13y ago
    However, many (nontechnical) users just want software that's free (as in beer) and works well. Therefore, what's best for developers (i.e. what attracts developers) is also seen as good for these users.
  - sillysaurus2 13y ago
    As a game developer, you're hurting our entire industry by shutting us out of using your software. And in the end, we'll find a way, with or without you. We'd rather stand with you, but we can't go near GPL'd code. You know CodeCombat recently open sourced their game? They're basically the first gamedev company in the history of gamedev to do that -- a non-indie company who open sourced their current-gen tech. It's a good idea, and I hope more companies follow. So, times are changing, but in the meantime your strict adherence to "GPL license == good guys; MIT license == bad guys" is detrimental to pretty much an entire community of programmers. (Programmers with zero options; they're not going to ragequit the gamedev industry just because engines are closed source.)
    - _delirium 13y ago
      Why would I want to give free labor to massively wealthy AAA studios who don't want to give back anything? If they want to use my code in their proprietary products, they can pay me to license it, just like they expect others to pay them. I don't see how it's "standing with me" to use my code to make the next Madden, without giving back either code or cash.
      - teamonkey 13y ago
        > massively wealthy AAA studios Straw man. > who don't want to give back anything Straw man.