13 ms·

Because you are actually free to do what you want with it, instead of free to do what someone else wants you to do with it.

StavrosK 8y ago
Yes, you are free to close it up and sell it, but everyone else then isn't free to use your changes. "More friendly to proprietary purposes" is "less free". It's kind of like arguing that a country where anyone can steal from anyone else with impunity is more free. Not when you consider the rights of the person being stolen from.
- derefr 8y ago
  Just because some forks of a project aren’t free, doesn’t mean that the project itself isn’t free. Especially if the project, like much of the e.g. MIT-licensed code in the world, is “done” for all intents and purposes and there is no reason at all to fork, proprietary or otherwise. (This comes up in the context of pure algorithms code a lot.) Also, even if a project is copylefted, people can still just do... exactly what they did here. Which, while different in the weak sense of “avoiding copyright” or maybe “avoiding patents”, in the context of systems code like this almost always results in the same code on both sides anyway. If the choice is between either giving the proprietary developers your code to use, or making them re-implement exactly what you wrote without your copy for reference—with no option for “they don’t implement it at all”—then exactly what is the point of choosing the latter over the former?
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    > Just because some forks of a project aren’t free, doesn’t mean that the project itself isn’t free We aren't talking about non-free, we're talking about less-free. > Just because some forks of a project aren’t free, doesn’t mean that the project itself isn’t free No. The fact that there can be forks of the project that aren't open is what means that the project itself is less free than a project where all forks must be open. > Especially if the project, like much of the e.g. MIT-licensed code in the world, is “done” I don't consider this relevant to the argument at hand. > then exactly what is the point of choosing the latter over the former? Are you asking me what the point is of making something you don't want people to do hard for them vs making it easy?
- adamrt 8y ago
  That's not a good analogy. In this case, people aren't being stolen from, they are freely giving it away for someone else to do as they wish. Additionally, "theft" as you put it, in this case, doesn't affect the original property owner.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Digital analogies to theft rarely are good, but this one is passable. The main point is that this license grants software freedoms, but then doesn't do anything to protect it - thus enabling middlemen (like most of us devs are, for most software we write!) to immediately strip those freedoms away. Proclamations of rights aren't really useful if they don't have means for enforcing those rights are not taken away.
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    I wasn't using it as an example of being deprived of property, but as an example of how infringing on other people's freedoms leads a system to be less free than one that doesn't.

StavrosK 8y ago

Yes, you are free to close it up and sell it, but everyone else then isn't free to use your changes. "More friendly to proprietary purposes" is "less free". It's kind of like arguing that a country where anyone can steal from anyone else with impunity is more free. Not when you consider the rights of the person being stolen from.

derefr 8y ago
Just because some forks of a project aren’t free, doesn’t mean that the project itself isn’t free. Especially if the project, like much of the e.g. MIT-licensed code in the world, is “done” for all intents and purposes and there is no reason at all to fork, proprietary or otherwise. (This comes up in the context of pure algorithms code a lot.) Also, even if a project is copylefted, people can still just do... exactly what they did here. Which, while different in the weak sense of “avoiding copyright” or maybe “avoiding patents”, in the context of systems code like this almost always results in the same code on both sides anyway. If the choice is between either giving the proprietary developers your code to use, or making them re-implement exactly what you wrote without your copy for reference—with no option for “they don’t implement it at all”—then exactly what is the point of choosing the latter over the former?
- StavrosK 8y ago
  > Just because some forks of a project aren’t free, doesn’t mean that the project itself isn’t free We aren't talking about non-free, we're talking about less-free. > Just because some forks of a project aren’t free, doesn’t mean that the project itself isn’t free No. The fact that there can be forks of the project that aren't open is what means that the project itself is less free than a project where all forks must be open. > Especially if the project, like much of the e.g. MIT-licensed code in the world, is “done” I don't consider this relevant to the argument at hand. > then exactly what is the point of choosing the latter over the former? Are you asking me what the point is of making something you don't want people to do hard for them vs making it easy?
adamrt 8y ago
That's not a good analogy. In this case, people aren't being stolen from, they are freely giving it away for someone else to do as they wish. Additionally, "theft" as you put it, in this case, doesn't affect the original property owner.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Digital analogies to theft rarely are good, but this one is passable. The main point is that this license grants software freedoms, but then doesn't do anything to protect it - thus enabling middlemen (like most of us devs are, for most software we write!) to immediately strip those freedoms away. Proclamations of rights aren't really useful if they don't have means for enforcing those rights are not taken away.
- StavrosK 8y ago
  I wasn't using it as an example of being deprived of property, but as an example of how infringing on other people's freedoms leads a system to be less free than one that doesn't.