Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   NiceMicro (nicemicro@fosstodon.org)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jul-2024 19:30:10 JST NiceMicro

   • Brodie Robertson

   the latest conversation of @BrodieOnLinux and the #Futo guy on the #TechOverTea podcast was quite interesting.

   What I found strange is how they separate licenses by being #OpenSource or #FreeSoftware. AFAIK, most popular licenses like GPL, MIT, BSD, MPL, etc. conform to both the #FSF and the #OSI standards. I guess what they meant was #CopyLeft vs permissive licenses?

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jul-2024 19:30:10 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     they meant they fell for propaganda
     
     BTW, even copyleft is permissive. all it does is grant permissions, though well-delimited ones. it's copyright that does the prohibiting. "lax permissive" or "pushover" are better qualifiers for non-copyleft licenses
   • Embed this notice
     NiceMicro (nicemicro@fosstodon.org)'s status on Wednesday, 03-Jul-2024 00:04:10 JST NiceMicro

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva

     @lxo I guess it depends on the point of view.

     I use "permissive" for MIT and BSD licenses, because they are not restricting developers. Free software is freedom for the users, not the developers. "Permissive" means that the developers are permitted to take away the right of their users by locking down a derivative or redistributed work that was originally free software.

     Like, how a "Permissive" regulation might let you cause damage to others without consequence.

     #FreeSoftware

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Wednesday, 03-Jul-2024 00:04:10 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     free software is freedom for users and developers. controlling others is not freedom, though, it's power. what copyleft refrains from granting middlemen is power over downstream users an developers, so that nobody's freedoms are harmed.