@kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek @cwebber

This is something I have to reflect upon.

I'm under the impression that commercial exploitation destroys anything good that comes from hacking.

Linux included.

At times, I'd like a license stricter then AGPL for my code, just to protect it from "the market".

And I refuse to accept that being commercial is the only way to be useful to people. That's the ethics of Capitalism, and I don't like it.

@Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek I'm skeptical of and concerned about commercial exploitation too. Problem is, "noncommercial" doesn't fix the things you'll expect it to, and will prevent things you want.

Here's a question: if Linux were noncommercial, should a community run nonprofit be legally allowed to run it in a commercially run hosting service / datacenter? Even if the hosting service profits from it? Can the cooperative collect dues?

@cwebber @Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek

Have you seen the peer production license? wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Pr

I think its a bit better than a blanket NC license. What I really want is a license requiring income from a commercial entity be used to improve the software. Either by spending time working on it, or paying for others time.


@alienghic @Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek I think the Peer Production License is a license with good intents and good people that is unfortunately doomed like every other NC approach

@cwebber @Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek

So far the hybrid GPL/commerical license seems to be the most likely to generate funding for developers while still being "Free software"

@alienghic @Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek by that I assume you mean copyleft with proprietary relicensing?

It has some problems sometimes but I'm generally good with it. :)

@cwebber @Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek

Yes I've seen Qt and the Ada compilers use it. Either your end product is GPL or you pay us.

@cwebber @alienghic @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek @diggity

Guys so what if I want something I do (code in my case) be and remain in any of its evolution a gift?

Is there anything wrong with it?

No license exists to allow this?

I know that my current license of choice (GPL and AGPL) allow this under certain conditions. And I find it annoying.

I would also agree to private myself from the opportunity to remove the gift, I just want it to remain a gift in any of its evolutions.

@Shamar @cwebber @alienghic @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek copyleft, Affero-style licensing, etc. are your best bet.

I don't think we'll ever see a license that keeps a work free and freedom-respecting in every possible scenario, for every person on Earth, until the end of human time. That's too tall of an order.

Remember, license enforcement is the flip side of the coin here... and it's difficult or discouraged, usually. There are very heated battles over FOSS enforcement strategy right now.

@diggity @Shamar @cwebber @starbreaker @rysiek

If I don't think eternal copyright is a good idea for creative works, why should it be appropriate for software?

Admittedly I'm not sure we're going to see a penguin books reissue of the first fortran compiler, but still, it should be released to the public domain.

@alienghic @Shamar @cwebber @starbreaker @rysiek I agree, but public domain has proven not to be "good enough" for works that people care strongly about keeping alive... public domain allows locking down of derivatives.

@diggity @Shamar @cwebber @starbreaker @rysiek

I had been wondering what it means to copylefted software when its copyright term expires.

Legal consistency implies that copyleft should end, just like commercial copyright should end.

@alienghic @diggity @Shamar @cwebber @starbreaker and that is indeed the case, but as long as the copyright is in force, copyleft is in force.

And most of the time that's entirely enough, because derivative works become licensed anew. The original's copyright might expire, but the derivative work is still under copyright -- and that's usually where the interesting stuff is happening and what people would like to use (or lock down).

@clacke @rysiek @starbreaker @cwebber @diggity @alienghic @kaniini

I do not WANT to give away my copyright, but I could accept to, if I was sure that the code would not be turned into a private profit.

However, accepting contributions under the same license only limit me and everybody else to that license, which might not be strict enough to prevent future explitations.

@alienghic @cwebber @Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker and this (as a licensing scheme) is 100% fine, because anyone has a clear choice -- either you go with GPL, or you pay.

Notice there is nothing about "noncommercial" in the GPL.

That's my point, NC is not necessary to achieve what people think it's needed for. And it's counter-productive and problematic in general.

@rysiek @cwebber @Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker

I thought Stallman explicitly wanted commercial activity to be allowed. Though he usually used the example of CD distributors.

@alienghic @cwebber @Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker yeah, but I don't think it was for the commercial activity per se, it was more of a "why block good uses of the software if they happen to be somehow related to a money flow"

@rysiek @alienghic @cwebber @kaniini @starbreaker

I've always read it this way too.

But recently I started to think that Stallman, as smart as he is, is still grown in a capitalist culture and subconsciously absorbed many of this culture's assumptions/requirements.

My recent answer to the "why block good uses related to money" is: because they have proved to break the good qualities of the software itself, in the long run.

@Shamar @starbreaker @cwebber @alienghic @rysiek

please for the love of all things holy untag me from this thread, i did the whole FSF vs Creative Commons non-commercial debate a decade and a half ago.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Octodon is a nice general purpose instance. more