• nanook
    link
    fedilink
    221 hours ago

    @anamethatisnt Yea, so you think the authors are not entitled to specify how their software is used? This is where I have a major disconnect with Richard Stallman.

    • @Ledivin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      23 hours ago

      They are free to use whatever license they want, but I am similarly free to avoid using software under non-FOSS licenses.

      • nanook
        link
        fedilink
        13 hours ago

        @Ledivin and if your wifi doesn’t work as a result, I’m totally ok with that too.

    • @anamethatisnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      320 hours ago

      I believe that both proprietary non-free systems and fully free systems can exist and that having licensing alternatives like GPL, LGPL and MIT gives the developer options for specifying how their software is to be used.

      The movement towards using MIT or LGPL instead of the full GPL for libraries thus allowing the developers using the libraries the freedom to choose what license their software should use is one I can stand behind.

      If someone builds a FLOSS turbotax competitor and don’t want anyone to use their hard work and fork it into a commercial and proprietary product then I believe there should be a license for that.
      If they rather earn money from it and copyrights their code instead that is also their prerogative.
      The middle-ground where they create a free turbotax competitor with a license that allows others to fork it into a proprietary software should also be possible - although I personally don’t see the allure.