3 ms·

> If you want everyone to use permissive licensing because you want to use free software inside of locked down programs you produce and are frustrated that grea

> If you want everyone to use permissive licensing because you want to use free software inside of locked down programs you produce and are frustrated that great copyleft software doesn't let you do that, fine. I can respect that position because I've experienced the same problem. But please get over it and find some non-free solution to your problem, instead of trying to undermine the ideology of people who actually care about freedom just because you are jealous of the quality of software that has that ideology attached to it. Stop pigeonholing people who disagree with you. I'd like everyone to use permissive licensing because I believe copyright (and more generally, intellectual property) is unjust. Copyleft is only possible in a world with a strong IP system.

bcg1 11y ago
Fair enough. I respect agree with your viewpoint, and you're not the one I'm calling out if that's your position. I do however think that from practical standpoint, when compared to copyleft licensing, permissive licensing is a weak solution toward the end that you are seeking.
clacke2 11y ago
If you are against copyright, support copyleft, which gives even big companies an incentive to dislike copyright!
- burntsushi 11y ago
  Copyleft depends on copyright. Additionally, my goal is to make my software as widely usable as possible. Using the GPL runs contrary to this goal.
  - rando289 11y ago
    > Using the GPL runs contrary to this goal. Saying "giving everyone the right to share it" is contrary to the goal of having it be shared widely (aka adopted), is at least a gross oversimplification and at most an absurd statement. However, RMS sees room for tactically using permissive licenses for the purpose of adoption too, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.en.html Getting more adoption as part of proprietary software may or may not lead to more overall adoption. Bsd kernel vs linux kernel is a case for gpl leading to more adoption than permissive. GPL says "allow EVERYONE to share it." And in some cases, more people share it this way! Who would have guessed? And it can lead to more people contributing, because they know everyone will have the right to share their work. The fact that permissive code means it could be shared LESS, because it can't be part of software which makes sharing illegal, is kind of across purposes. I mean, if you just care about adoption, a lot of times, you might get more by keeping it completely proprietary and selling the copyright to a big company. Or you might get more by embedding it into worms and phishing emails and running a botnet.
    - burntsushi 11y ago
      I'm not writing a kernel. The fact remains that if I use the GPL, people will tell me that they can't use it because their legal department forbids it. Alternatively, using it requires approval from their legal team and that requires enough effort not to use my code. This isn't some theory that you can weasel your way out of using examples. It's based on real experiences I've had.
      - rando289 11y ago
        I was not weaseling out of it. I explained how it can go either way.
        burntsushi 11y ago
        And I'm saying it doesn't in my case. Fewer people would use my code if I made it copyleft.

bcg1 11y ago

Fair enough. I respect agree with your viewpoint, and you're not the one I'm calling out if that's your position. I do however think that from practical standpoint, when compared to copyleft licensing, permissive licensing is a weak solution toward the end that you are seeking.

clacke2 11y ago

If you are against copyright, support copyleft, which gives even big companies an incentive to dislike copyright!

burntsushi 11y ago
Copyleft depends on copyright. Additionally, my goal is to make my software as widely usable as possible. Using the GPL runs contrary to this goal.
- rando289 11y ago
  > Using the GPL runs contrary to this goal. Saying "giving everyone the right to share it" is contrary to the goal of having it be shared widely (aka adopted), is at least a gross oversimplification and at most an absurd statement. However, RMS sees room for tactically using permissive licenses for the purpose of adoption too, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.en.html Getting more adoption as part of proprietary software may or may not lead to more overall adoption. Bsd kernel vs linux kernel is a case for gpl leading to more adoption than permissive. GPL says "allow EVERYONE to share it." And in some cases, more people share it this way! Who would have guessed? And it can lead to more people contributing, because they know everyone will have the right to share their work. The fact that permissive code means it could be shared LESS, because it can't be part of software which makes sharing illegal, is kind of across purposes. I mean, if you just care about adoption, a lot of times, you might get more by keeping it completely proprietary and selling the copyright to a big company. Or you might get more by embedding it into worms and phishing emails and running a botnet.
  - burntsushi 11y ago
    I'm not writing a kernel. The fact remains that if I use the GPL, people will tell me that they can't use it because their legal department forbids it. Alternatively, using it requires approval from their legal team and that requires enough effort not to use my code. This isn't some theory that you can weasel your way out of using examples. It's based on real experiences I've had.
    - rando289 11y ago
      I was not weaseling out of it. I explained how it can go either way.
      - burntsushi 11y ago
        And I'm saying it doesn't in my case. Fewer people would use my code if I made it copyleft.