• charje@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Copyleft licences are the only true free software licences. All other open source licenses are just proprietariable.

    • MooseBoys@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You think that a license that imposes more restrictions on its use is more free than one that imposes fewer???

      Where my Apache-2.0 gang at?

      • Occhioverde@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This argument reminds me of the Tolerance Paradox described by Karl Popper, who stated that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

        In the licensing context, yes, the Apache and Expat licenses may grant your users the freedom to create proprietary software out of your works, but at the cost of sacrificing all the basic freedoms of all the users that will use the derived non-free product.

        So, like Popper said that you should prefer removing the “smaller” freedom for a society of being intolerant in order to guarantee the “greater” one of remaining tolerant in the future, since you still have to choose which freedoms you are going to negate, it’s preferable to use copyleft and impede the “smaller” freedom of creating proprietary software than not using it and allowing the crushing of future users’ fundamental rights.

      • ourob@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, it depends on your perspective. Copyleft licenses restrict downstream developers in order to protect the rights of downstream users.