11–20 of 54 posts
Ugh, very true. Folks forget that most FOSS work is volunteer & berating the hackers who make it won't help one bit. Worst is the issue reports about a fixed bug, followed by "What version do you have?" aaaaand silence. At the very least come back and close the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go ahead and create an AGPL fork then ;-)
Or just use the other licenses that have those restrictions? What's the joke?
(a) it's someone trying to force their values on someone else in the name of "freedom" (in scare quotes because it's a very specific definition of the term that requires political buy-in to even see it as a form of freedom)
and
(b) as stated, the people complaining are free (no scare quotes) to take the permissively licensed code and incorporate it into their "free" code to their heart's content. The ability to do this is one of the reasons people choose permissive licenses in the first place.
I don't care if people choose freedom or "freedom" or anything in between- that's their right as authors, and no one license is appropriate for all communities or goals or projects. I only object to anyone who claims that there is a One True Path that everyone should follow and that anyone who doesn't follow that path is somehow morally inferior, which is usually the template that these discussions follow.
One repeated theme is what people won't talk about, do talk about, and loudly social signal about, generally have nothing in common, so assuming any of those individually is a universal truth is likely to be a disaster. This applies to a lot more of life than just FOSS development.
As an example of contradiction was the claim that people won't read the docs but they will watch animations. The reality as seen above is 99% of the population will read the docs and never contact you unless your docs suck, 0.9% will watch the pictures, and 0.1% will aggressively track you down and ask you to read the docs for them. Although adding animations will cut annoyance contact by 90%, that doesn't mean gifs are the only thing that matters; the docs are what's really important.
> You can choose the most permissive software license, and people will still argue with you about your choice. The irony of people getting annoyed because of "missing restrictions".
It's about missing guarantee of future freedom rather but I am sure you know that.
> You can choose the most permissive software license, and people will still argue with you about your choice. The irony of people getting annoyed because of "missing restrictions".
Like lots of open source folks I know, I'm personally a fan of the underpinnings of apps/servers as well as libraries being permissive (BSD/MIT) so that everyone can contribute/benefit but full applications being GPL. To each their own, of course, and there are many rationales for differing views. But please don't belittle others' takes on what they choose to do with the effort they put in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's about missing guarantee of future freedom rather but I am sure you know that.
Copyright owners can always decide to release future versions under whatever license they please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's about missing guarantee of future freedom rather but I am sure you know that.
Copyright owners can always decide to release future versions under whatever license they please.
"Do not start an open source project if you need praise, warmth and love from your fellow human beings." Ugh, very true. Folks forget that most FOSS work is volunteer & berating the hackers who make it won't help one bit. Worst is the issue reports about a fixed bug, followed by "What version do you have?" aaaaand silence. At the very least come back and close the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go ahead and create an AGPL fork then ;-)
Does that work? I guess, I hadn't much considered whether that was a thing one could do.
That is my whole point: MIT and BSD code is free-er than GPL and AGPL because you can go from MIT and BSD to AGPL but not the other way around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that work? I guess, I hadn't much considered whether that was a thing one could do.
I guess you can take code under a permissive license, fork it and release it under a less permissive license yes. IANAL though. That is my whole point: MIT and BSD code is free-er than GPL and AGPL because you can go from MIT and BSD to AGPL but not the other way around.
With BSD code, the majority of devs can always sell out, and make sure all future modifications are purely proprietary.
We’ve seen that happen on Android.
Nowadays neither the launcher, nor the keyboard, nor the dialer, nor the contacts, nor the calendar, nor the device search is open source anymore.