On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:41:03AM +0200, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 11:19:43 +0200 > Hiltjo Posthuma <hil...@codemadness.org> wrote: > > Dear Hiltjo, > > > I actively search for FOSS in my life and think using software which > > is GPL-licensed is fine. > > yeah, opinions differ here of course. I also use a lot of GPL-licensed > software, but avoid it in terms of GPLv3-licensing-issues when picking > up APIs/libraries. > > > Maybe spreading virally is a better term (although maybe not > > currently :)). > > Haha, one could say I didn't want to trigger any Google censor bots > given the current global situation. ;) I can get behind the "viral" > term though, and it's better suited here. > > > It is "restrictive" in this sense it forces a direction, which is by > > design. > > Yes, in the end it's a matter of your personal world-view. MIT/ISC/etc. > are "libertarian". They remove restrictions as much as possible and > "let the free market" decide. The risk here is that big corporations or > other powerful players (e.g. state actors) can take over a project and > choose not to publich further modifications, and in a sense this > corresponds to right-wing economic principles that trusts the free > market. > > The GPL is corresponding to a left-wing economic view: Restrictions are > set in place in the interest of steering the market in a way that is > aligned with (possibly non-financial) political interests. >
The last sentence regarding non-financial political interests is not true/misleading. See also the page "Selling Free Software": https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html I think it is a too simplistic view mapping it to a certain economic/political wing or to put it even more bluntly "people in business suits" vs hippies. I think for businesses a development-model of selling and providing the full FOSS and offer paid services for the custom work done is a more fair model. > Both economic directions can go to extremes, and we all know the > corresponding issues this brings. With GPL vs. MIT/ISC, I think this is > the same: It's wrong to outright reject the GPL and one should accept > that there are valid reasons to use it. It's also wrong to give flak to > projects/people preferring MIT/ISC (or even actively avoiding the GPL), > and accepting that the policy induced by the GPL has downsides. > > Most importantly though, one should protect the liberty of choice in > the FOSS landscape. Even though I am a strong proponent of MIT/ISC, some > (recent) developments in the FOSS landscape have shown me that copyleft > is a good thing to have on the larger scale. > > With best regards > > Laslo > -- Kind regards, Hiltjo