4 ms·

That depends on what you're trying to succeed at. If the primary goal is to be free then freeness is the primary measure of success and popularity comes second.

by marrs 12y ago

That depends on what you're trying to succeed at. If the primary goal is to be free then freeness is the primary measure of success and popularity comes second. The question here is about the choice of licence affecting the success of free software. My argument is that, if success is more likely under an MIT style licence, this still may not be enough to sway me if I want a guarantee that users of my software are able to scrutinize the source code, or that derivatives of my software will remain free.

Karunamon 12y ago
Freeness in of itself is not a goal. Dirt is free. Air is free. I can put a "hello world" app out there and release it under GPL, but is it useful? Does it actually solve any problems?
- marrs 12y ago
  Surely "hello world" is useful only if you release it under a copyleft licence since its purpose is to teach you how to get started with the language it demonstrates. In any case, freeness is a goal for me as a user of software. I choose Gimp over Photoshop, for example, because I care more about still being able to access my photos in 20 years time than I do about having access to certain feature sets.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Surely "hello world" is useful only if you release it under a copyleft licence since its purpose is to teach you how to get started with the language it demonstrates. I would argue that "hello world" is useful only if you release it under a very permissive non-copyleft free software license or, better, as public domain, for exactly that reason. Copyleft is excessively restrictive for this purpose.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    That is a practical concern, not a political one. The purely political stance I rail against is, in effect, "X fits my use case and is objectively better in every way, but Y is free, so I'll use Y." For what it's worth, I can still open PSD's created way back in the 90's, and the format is well documented.[1] Adobe could disappear in a puff of logic tomorrow and their format wouldn't become unreadable. [1]: https://www.adobe.com/devnet-apps/photoshop/fileformatashtml/

by marrs 12y ago

Karunamon 12y ago

Freeness in of itself is not a goal. Dirt is free. Air is free. I can put a "hello world" app out there and release it under GPL, but is it useful? Does it actually solve any problems?

marrs 12y ago
Surely "hello world" is useful only if you release it under a copyleft licence since its purpose is to teach you how to get started with the language it demonstrates. In any case, freeness is a goal for me as a user of software. I choose Gimp over Photoshop, for example, because I care more about still being able to access my photos in 20 years time than I do about having access to certain feature sets.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Surely "hello world" is useful only if you release it under a copyleft licence since its purpose is to teach you how to get started with the language it demonstrates. I would argue that "hello world" is useful only if you release it under a very permissive non-copyleft free software license or, better, as public domain, for exactly that reason. Copyleft is excessively restrictive for this purpose.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  That is a practical concern, not a political one. The purely political stance I rail against is, in effect, "X fits my use case and is objectively better in every way, but Y is free, so I'll use Y." For what it's worth, I can still open PSD's created way back in the 90's, and the format is well documented.[1] Adobe could disappear in a puff of logic tomorrow and their format wouldn't become unreadable. [1]: https://www.adobe.com/devnet-apps/photoshop/fileformatashtml/