1. 2

  2. 3

    This person does not understand freedom.

    1. 7

      I’m struggling to parse your comment as something other than “I want to be heard, but do not care to work for it’.

      If you disagree with what they have to say, could you elaborate a little?

    2. 3

      There is Parity now, which I think has an interesting approach: https://licensezero.com/licenses/parity

      It’s a very strong copy-left license. Not ‘traditional’ free or open source software, because it puts some restrictions on use (not, like (A)GPL on distribution). I’d consider software licensed with it ‘open source’, but I would not say so publicly because that would be a surefire way to derail a discussion before it even starts…

      The important points are, IMHO, whether it is important that a new license adheres strictly to the four freedoms, or whether there should be some wiggle room to account for changed circumstances. This would need to be discussed by people who think there actually is a problem (I do). Hopefully in an open-minded, non-dogmatic way, with those who oppose this on principle coming up with alternative solutions that take into account those changed circumstances.

      As for licenses that are similar to ‘Creative Commons Non-Commercial’ (which the author mentions in their article, there is now the Polyform project ( https://polyformproject.org/ ). Those licenses would obviously never be considered ‘free software’ under any circumstance, but I think they offer a few interesting options for developers of business-focused software.

      1. 2

        “ But there also need to be sensible controls put back in the hands of the people who write, and use, the software.”

        People who write software choose licenses and based on continuing to use them may be happy.

        These posts are weird as they are building a straw man of an exploited developer that I don’t think exists.

        The solution is simple, this author should either write under a license ve prefers, or pay someone to do so.

        This is such a weird nonissue to me.

        1. 2

          The author is calling for development of licenses that consider these factors…

          Considering stuff like this & trying to write a license that produces the correct incentives is hard. (For instance, the hippocratic license doesn’t seem like it’s going to succeed at fostering a culture around development that considers social and ethical dimensions more carefully, simply because all the versions of it that have been released have been easy for even non-lawyers to poke holes in.) The author isn’t in a position to do this. Consciousness-raising is valuable, when you’re not in a position to take action.