"Copyleft is less free than permissive licenses because permissive licenses allow you to make proprietary forks of free software" is a worldview that just straight-up makes no sense at all
If something is copyleft, it means that I can’t use it at work. Which is totally fair if the creator wants it that way, but it does mean the use is more restricted.
This is why this doesn't make sense: permissive licenses offer freedom from obligations, and copyleft offers guarantees of rights. Only the latter actually describes freedom as it appears in practice.
Introduce freedom from obligations in a context where power differentials exist and it becomes a form of tyranny. Freedom exists only through the obligation to respect the rights of others. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by limiting the government's right to interfere in it, for example.
Freedom from obligations when one party holds more power than another just means that the former exploits the latter. Businesses exploit the community, in the case of permissive licenses. Copyleft levels the playing field and guarantees the same rights to *everyone*, which is what freedom actually is.
@RL_Dane@drewdevault Maybe one very recent example of relevance: systemd added now example code how to use systemd notify w/o using sd_notify by including example code as MIT-0 in the docs.
They discouraged linking to libsystemd for things like sd_notify before, too, but that way they want to actively encourage everyone to simply use UNIX sockets directly.
This is, to me, a great example of using a very permissive license.
Just curious why you use permissive licenses, then? I mean, I use MIT, but I'm just spitting out ~100 line shell scripts here and there, puttering around and having fun. If I invested months in a project, I'd probably want it to be strongly copylefted.
The only BSD license apologia that made sense to me was #OpenBSD's attitude of, "We'd rather the corporations use our good code and not give back than come up with their own crappy solutions."
In that view, its a service to the community at large to help the security of commercial software.
Not saying I agree, really, but it has *some* logic, rather than complaining that the GPL is a one-way street (and somehow commercialism isn't).
@RL_Dane indeed. I don't think that copyleft is the only answer; I see room for permissive licenses and I use them myself for many of my projects. I'm simply refuting the common bad analysis of the "freedom" associated with each.
@drewdevault I listened to a podcast the other day that talked about the distinction between liberty and freedom, and that we should be using the word liberty. Freedom means freedom from encumbrances. Liberty carries a notion of freedom and responsibility, where you limit freedom to the extent that it allows freedom for all.