@radmin "open source" is not extremism.

"open source" was solely defined to cover up and try to eliminate free software extremism to not hurt the corporate masters feelings; http://catb.org/~esr/open-source.html

As far as I can tell, Bluesky and Osu are proprietary software projects that don't even follow the 10 requirements; https://opensource.org/osd (yes, the page most "open source" supporters have never seen), let alone respect the 4 freedoms; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms

The more people proprietary software projects sucker in, the more popular they become, making them seem more and more successful, but in reality, more and more people are losing part of their freedom.


Many weak licenses predate the "open source announcement" (1998), for example the MIT expat license was written in the late 1980s.

Weak licenses are anti-freedom, as they grant the power to take all 4 freedoms away and deny freedom.

Weak licenses are popular as it's as easy way to get popular, as the software become immensely popular if a proprietary software company decides to use it to enhance their proprietary malware and installs their malware on millions or billions of machines - but any of such cases are clearly a massive loss of freedom, as it's proprietary software for >99% of users.


Strong licenses are pro-freedom, as they grant the 4 freedoms (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms) and they do not grant the power to take those 4 freedoms away.

Free software under a strong license may be less popular, but you can confidently know that it grants freedom in all places it is used, as for any case where it gets put in proprietary software, you can enforce the license to get it taken out, or to make that proprietary software, free software and respect the users freedom.