5 ms·

> Copyleft is a string. The default would be complete permissiveness. I have answered a similar line of questioning before. Arguing strongly for permissive li

> Copyleft is a string. The default would be complete permissiveness. I have answered a similar line of questioning before. Arguing strongly for permissive licenses is arguing for a kind of passive freedom which presents as freedom from obligations. Copyleft is the sort of active freedom which presents as a guarantee of rights.

endisneigh 2y ago
I disagree - Redict is only possible because of the permissive license to begin with. A hypothetical license that said no forks allowed wouldn’t allow Redict, for instance.
- drewdevault 2y ago
  A hypothetical license that said "no forks allowed" would not be an open source license. If Redis used the LGPL we could still fork it, we'd just have to use the LGPL for our fork; likewise anyone can fork Redict so long as they use the LGPL for their fork.* * Technically you do have more options than this with the LGPL but this is a layman's explanation.
  - endisneigh 2y ago
    I did not say it would be an open source license. My point is simply that Redict takes something more permissive and makes it restrictive, which is true.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - drewdevault 2y ago
      I don't think that's true. It's only true if freedom == freedom from obligation, which is a naive view of freedom. But if freedom == guarantees of rights, then Redict is more free. This is how freedoms actually work in practice: freedom of the press is guaranteed by restricting the government from censorship, workers rights are guaranteed by restricting the freedom of businesses to exploit them, etc. In practice all freedoms require someone to give something up. Even with permissive licenses, you are giving up the sole right to your IP and the sole to commercialize your software.
      - endisneigh 2y ago
        With all due respect I do not think that makes any sense. You’re creating this metaphor with the government, but this isn’t the government. In the end freedom is a spectrum and you are free to do more with MIT than LGPL. Even if someone forked MIT and made it closed source that does not in any way stop or restrict those who prefer the project pre-fork. Indeed, that is the very logic that has made Redict possible to begin with. This is the illustration of why MIT is maximally free. Suppose the EU said code must be closed source, and you must distribute encrypted binaries. In this hypothetical it wouldn’t be possible to use Redict at all. This is another example of why the MIT, and permissiveness in general, is superior. —- As an aside your freedom of the press example is yet another reason for permissiveness. The government isn’t permissive by default, which is why “freedom of the press” is even a thing.
        drewdevault 2y ago
        Governments, businesses, they're all just institutions and I see no reason not to use them as illustrative examples. The MIT maximally enables exploitation; copyleft maximally enables freedom. From the point of a proprietary fork of a permissively licensed project onwards, users of the proprietary fork enjoy fewer freedoms than before. You are advocating for freedoms for the few (business owners making proprietary forks of free software for profit) at the expense of the freedom of many (everyone else). Redict would also be possible if Redis used a copyleft license. The space for Redict to exist is not afforded to us because of the use of a permissive license in some way that Redict denies to anyone else through the use of a copyleft license.
        endisneigh 2y ago
        I really don’t understand you. Even if there was a closed source fork, users would still be free to use the open source one. There is no restriction or diminishing of options. In fact, now there are even more options and thus more freedom. In any case we can agree to disagree.
        2y ago
ksec 2y ago
This is off topic. I am going to assume this isn't impersonation, but Drew what happen to your old HN account? ( I had it on RSS feed and hasn't shown any update for ages I thought you left HN )
- drewdevault 2y ago
  I don't see any reason why this is off-topic. Naturally the license change is a distinguishing feature of Redict and a reasonable subject for discussion. I lost the password to my old account.
  - ksec 2y ago
    >I don't see any reason why this is off-topic. Naturally the license change is a distinguishing feature of Redict and a reasonable subject for discussion. I meant off topic as in asking you question about your account. Not the Open Source discussions which is of course perfectly valid. Sorry for the confusion.

endisneigh 2y ago

I disagree - Redict is only possible because of the permissive license to begin with. A hypothetical license that said no forks allowed wouldn’t allow Redict, for instance.

drewdevault 2y ago
A hypothetical license that said "no forks allowed" would not be an open source license. If Redis used the LGPL we could still fork it, we'd just have to use the LGPL for our fork; likewise anyone can fork Redict so long as they use the LGPL for their fork.* * Technically you do have more options than this with the LGPL but this is a layman's explanation.
- endisneigh 2y ago
  I did not say it would be an open source license. My point is simply that Redict takes something more permissive and makes it restrictive, which is true.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - drewdevault 2y ago
    I don't think that's true. It's only true if freedom == freedom from obligation, which is a naive view of freedom. But if freedom == guarantees of rights, then Redict is more free. This is how freedoms actually work in practice: freedom of the press is guaranteed by restricting the government from censorship, workers rights are guaranteed by restricting the freedom of businesses to exploit them, etc. In practice all freedoms require someone to give something up. Even with permissive licenses, you are giving up the sole right to your IP and the sole to commercialize your software.
    - endisneigh 2y ago
      With all due respect I do not think that makes any sense. You’re creating this metaphor with the government, but this isn’t the government. In the end freedom is a spectrum and you are free to do more with MIT than LGPL. Even if someone forked MIT and made it closed source that does not in any way stop or restrict those who prefer the project pre-fork. Indeed, that is the very logic that has made Redict possible to begin with. This is the illustration of why MIT is maximally free. Suppose the EU said code must be closed source, and you must distribute encrypted binaries. In this hypothetical it wouldn’t be possible to use Redict at all. This is another example of why the MIT, and permissiveness in general, is superior. —- As an aside your freedom of the press example is yet another reason for permissiveness. The government isn’t permissive by default, which is why “freedom of the press” is even a thing.
      - drewdevault 2y ago
        Governments, businesses, they're all just institutions and I see no reason not to use them as illustrative examples. The MIT maximally enables exploitation; copyleft maximally enables freedom. From the point of a proprietary fork of a permissively licensed project onwards, users of the proprietary fork enjoy fewer freedoms than before. You are advocating for freedoms for the few (business owners making proprietary forks of free software for profit) at the expense of the freedom of many (everyone else). Redict would also be possible if Redis used a copyleft license. The space for Redict to exist is not afforded to us because of the use of a permissive license in some way that Redict denies to anyone else through the use of a copyleft license.
        endisneigh 2y ago
        I really don’t understand you. Even if there was a closed source fork, users would still be free to use the open source one. There is no restriction or diminishing of options. In fact, now there are even more options and thus more freedom. In any case we can agree to disagree.
        2y ago

ksec 2y ago

This is off topic. I am going to assume this isn't impersonation, but Drew what happen to your old HN account? ( I had it on RSS feed and hasn't shown any update for ages I thought you left HN )

drewdevault 2y ago
I don't see any reason why this is off-topic. Naturally the license change is a distinguishing feature of Redict and a reasonable subject for discussion. I lost the password to my old account.
- ksec 2y ago
  >I don't see any reason why this is off-topic. Naturally the license change is a distinguishing feature of Redict and a reasonable subject for discussion. I meant off topic as in asking you question about your account. Not the Open Source discussions which is of course perfectly valid. Sorry for the confusion.