229
submitted 7 months ago by Chalix@lemm.ee to c/linux@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 6 points 7 months ago

Agreed, those are pretty permissive licenses (though not completely free), but they're still licenses that you deliberately choose, not ones that were forced upon you.

[-] taladar@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

Copyright is a law forced upon us. It is not some sort of natural state.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 0 points 7 months ago

So are murder and traffic laws.

[-] taladar@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

The point is that you have it backwards with the license choices. You don't have some sort of inherent right to prevent others from copying data you produce, it is a choice of society to grant you that exclusive right and if society deems it to do more harm than good to do so (e.g. because 90% of our culture is lost thanks to copyright after it is no longer commercially available but before copyright runs out) then society absolutely has the right to take your copyright away from you again.

[-] tabular@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

In what way are they not completly free? Cuz you gotta keep the same license?

[-] Shareni@programming.dev 3 points 7 months ago

Copyleft licenses do force you to do certain things, like make your changes to the code available, and AGPL was made specifically to patch some GPL loopholes. They are technically less free than something like Apache which is essentially "do whatever you want, IDC..."

[-] tabular@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Which are more free depends how you look at it. If we limit the scope to just us then having no restrictions is more free than a copyleft licenses that have any restrictions. If we also consider our users then being able to do what we want includes not giving the same level of freedom to our users, and the same applies to our user's users. A restriction on us denying freedom ~~ensures~~ gives freedom to others.

[-] Shareni@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago

If we also consider our users

GPL doesn't give your users any benefits, only headaches. It does benefit your user's users, and yourself.

But I get what you're writing. While I agree GPL is better, I don't agree it's more free. Enforced freedom can't be more free than absolute freedom. Purely from a philosophical standpoint.

[-] tabular@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I'm of the opinion that a cookie on your desk takes more willpower to resist eating rather it being in a locked box in the kitchen. I consider even devs with good intentions to not have perfect resistance to temptation at all times, and so being legally compelled to not deny users software freedom via AGPL is a benefit to my users as it helps them resist any temptation 😇

[-] bruce965@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

As far as I understand, you only have to make your changes to the code available to users of your software. You are free to make any modifications as long as you keep them to yourself and don't share the binaries (or access the service, in case of AGPL) with anyone. I might be mistaken, though.

[-] Shareni@programming.dev 3 points 7 months ago

You're correct, but the point is that it's forcing you to do something. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it is less free than Apache or MPL

[-] bruce965@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

Ah I get what you mean, I used to share your same view. I used to think that the MIT license was more free than GPL for the reasons you mentioned.

When Google started working on Fuchsia OS and they said it will be MIT license, I started to get worried that smart products producers would start using it instead of Linux. Then they wouldn't need to release the source code to customers as the software would no longer be GPL.

The difference is that MIT gives more freedom to the producers, while GPL gives more freedom to the consumers.

Personally, my sympathy goes to consumers, not producers, thus I understood why people say GPL is more free than say Apache or MIT.

Licenses such as MIT, Apache, MPL, etc... are a double-edged sword. 😬

this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
229 points (95.3% liked)

Linux

48376 readers
895 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS