1. 4
  1. 18

    I stopped after a couple of sections, but I find that style both tedious and unpersuasive.

    That was over 3500 words of creating and knocking down strawmen. I suppose the title tipped the author’s hand.

    I don’t quite understand the joy in imagining those two specific sides of the argument and pitting them against each other. Personally, when I release something I’ve made my choice of license depends entirely upon some combination of my goals for the project and what, exactly, I used to build it.

    Usually I release things because I was scratching my own itch and hope others will do some combination of (learn from my work, point out my errors, find something useful for themselves) I just choose the permissive license that’s most popular with the people I think might care enough to look. Most commonly MIT or BSD, occasionally Artistic or Apache. Sometimes the things I make are derived from some copyleft component, in which case I just use the same copyleft license I inherit from my dependency. Occasionally, I want more control and have plans for building out the thing I want to release in a more expansive way. For that my default starting position is AGPL.

    There’s never very much tension for me here… the character of what I built and what I want to do with it is generally very clear, and it’s very hard to imagine needing a debate like the one OP imagines in order to decide.

    1. 6

      I find that style both tedious and unpersuasive

      Same. This reads like a 10 year old somehow has fanatic beliefs about the GPL. I have seen this topic hotly debated on Lobste.rs, but the completely idiotic caricature of the GPL supporter ruins any credibility this post might have had.

      1. 2

        IMO, it was made for people who don’t understand GPL/BSD already. I was one of them, and I really didn’t understand what the differences were between them, and certainly didn’t know how they applied to communities and corporations in the real world. This helped me understand that a bit more, so that’s pretty good isn’t it?

        1. 1

          I’m glad you feel it helped you. My general preference would be to point readers in similar situations toward a more succinct piece that does not go through all the contortions that this one requires to construct its dubious straw men.

          This one, by Dr. Nicolas Suzor isn’t bad if you want that kind of thing.

      2. 13

        Congratulations to the author on winning an imaginary argument

        1. 4

          Besides the strange argument form and the one sided view, there is one good point in there:

          But we certainly won’t find a definition of freedom that suits both of us.

          This is often forgotten during license arguments. Which makes such discussions harder then the need to be.