0
2

[–] varialus 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I like this discussion. I used to support copyleft licences because I liked the viral aspect of pressuring users to contribute improvements back to the community, but eventually I started to think about how I might be able to compete against big corporations with the intent of yes, providing for myself, but also for benefitting society Actually come to think of it, I think what I thought of before that was of my position as a cog within the machine. Who cares about which tool is used to develop a product? Does the big wig up at the top? Well he cares about the cost and the risk, but he's not the one who has to suffer through using a terrible too when a better tool exists, simply because the better tool has a viral copyleft license. It's the developer who suffers. Yes, copyleft hurts the big companies but hurts them by means of attacking their lowly employees. Copyleft is all well and good while you're living in your mom's basement, but as soon as you get a job and you have to stop using all the tools that you know and love, it's then miserable. Better to support the paradigm from the beginning that you'll be able to rely on regardless of whether you're living in your mom's basement, working in a cubicle, working in an executive office, or working out of your garage. The only reason why copyleft is so popular is that children are communist shitheads. Kill all children! No, not really, but I do wish young folks understood better.

0
1

[–] Duion 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

GPL is actually one of the most effective ways to kill off possible contributors to your project, at least everyone that could have serious skill or money, the only ones you are left with are the ones living in moms basement, but not all of them, only a small portion, so your possible contributors with GPL are a small portion of a very small portion of people.

0
1

[–] notenoughstuff [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Good points. I think a lot of companies gain more than they lose from copyleft, and a number of companies use copyleft in various ways. For instance, some companies offer both copyleft and proprietary licenses of their products. But copyleft definitely introduces a number of considerable problems.

0
0

[–] varialus 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I think much of it comes down to whether it's something they intend to sell, which is often what gets the most programming attention within the company, and programming is what I personally enjoy. As far as just software to use within the company, yeah, copyleft stuff usually has more features and is a bit friendlier, so there's no real downside to using it. But for me, what helps me the most when I'm sitting in some cubicle, what helps me the most, what enriches and improves my work environment is well written frameworks and libraries written by seemingly angelic servants sent from God, whose truly selfless altruism allows some pathetic wretch like me, who is working and supporting "the man" to have some small level of respite from the soul crushing job that my eternal spirit has had to lower itself into doing, in order to support the life and well-being of my body and those of my family.

0
1

[–] KikesDidTheTitanic 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This guy thinks his post is a lot more original and insightful than it actually is...

0
1

[–] lemon11 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I assume you're calling attention to the high-voted comment by "Certhas," which is obscured by the archive site's rendering, so I had to read it here https://snew.github.io/r/programming/comments/9bhyv9/comment/e53jp3o/

But it doesn't follow that it must be open for commercial exploitation.

This is the way communists use the term "exploitation" to refer to voluntary trade.

If enterprise wants to use and build upon these results it's right that they contribute back to the research institutions.

A non-commercial license prohibits this. Some of the replies feel the contradiction, but they don't really put their finger on it.

Anyway, RMS's view against "intellectual property" neatly sidesteps the idea of responsibility for tools being misused by treating knowledge differently from physical objects, which it is.

0
0

[–] notenoughstuff [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yeah, it is Certhas' comment I meant to link to. I believed it would render well, but didn't check.

This is the way communists use the term "exploitation" to refer to voluntary trade.

Aren't he arguing for the universities getting something in return? For instance let companies buy the rights to the source code if they want?

Also, it seems like a different meaning than the one used by communists; they tend to present working for others as "unjust", while the meaning here seems more neutral, at least to me.

A non-commercial license prohibits this. Some of the replies feel the contradiction, but they don't really put their finger on it.

Is he generally against copyleft? Copyleft can IMO make a lot of sense, but it can also have drawbacks from an overall perspective, heavily dependent on the specific case in my beliefs.

Anyway, RMS's view against "intellectual property" neatly sidesteps the idea of responsibility for tools being misused by treating knowledge differently from physical objects, which it is.

Eh... I must say that he makes some very good arguments in the start against that.

0
1

[–] lemon11 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

RMS has written against "intellectual property" as a concept (though I haven't read it lately), and he pretty much invented "copyleft" as we understand it today. I personally prefer open licenses which free the users of code rather than the code as an end to itself. Similarly, knowledge is not an end to itself, but I think RMS would argue that this meshes with the purpose of libre licenses, which restrict what one party can do with another party's output, so that knowledge, technology, or algorithms don't become secret spells which become lost to the ages. He has a point.

But yes, non-commercial licensors can dual-license for profit. But funding research isn't what Certhas argued: he argued that some tools are too dangerous to be allowed commercial use, which in the end doesn't make sense, because if the tool is known about, and useful enough, it can be replicated. And anyway, not everybody cares about their legal licensing regime, least of all people whom he wouldn't trust with a piece of software he'd write.