225
submitted 5 months ago by Chalix@lemm.ee to c/linux@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] helenslunch@feddit.nl -1 points 5 months ago

Most people on Lemmy will flat-out tell you that they don't give a single fuck about copyright and that they have a right to anything that is reproducible. Not only that but they consider it a "moral imperative" to back up that copyrighted material and share it with others, no matter what that actual content is or who created it.

[-] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

Well yes, but unironically. Do you really think we should just let data get lost?

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev -1 points 5 months ago

I wonder to what degree that would still apply when it's their work (say, a photo) being used by others in any way they see fit.

[-] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

Wouldn't change anything for me. If I put data on the internet, I put it under a permissive license. (AGPL for code, CC-BY-SA for everything else).

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev -1 points 5 months ago

Agreed, those are pretty permissive licenses (though not completely free), but they're still licenses that you deliberately choose, not ones that were forced upon you.

[-] taladar@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

Copyright is a law forced upon us. It is not some sort of natural state.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev -1 points 5 months ago

So are murder and traffic laws.

[-] tabular@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

In what way are they not completly free? Cuz you gotta keep the same license?

[-] Shareni@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago

Copyleft licenses do force you to do certain things, like make your changes to the code available, and AGPL was made specifically to patch some GPL loopholes. They are technically less free than something like Apache which is essentially "do whatever you want, IDC..."

[-] bruce965@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago

As far as I understand, you only have to make your changes to the code available to users of your software. You are free to make any modifications as long as you keep them to yourself and don't share the binaries (or access the service, in case of AGPL) with anyone. I might be mistaken, though.

[-] Shareni@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago

You're correct, but the point is that it's forcing you to do something. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it is less free than Apache or MPL

[-] bruce965@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago

Ah I get what you mean, I used to share your same view. I used to think that the MIT license was more free than GPL for the reasons you mentioned.

When Google started working on Fuchsia OS and they said it will be MIT license, I started to get worried that smart products producers would start using it instead of Linux. Then they wouldn't need to release the source code to customers as the software would no longer be GPL.

The difference is that MIT gives more freedom to the producers, while GPL gives more freedom to the consumers.

Personally, my sympathy goes to consumers, not producers, thus I understood why people say GPL is more free than say Apache or MIT.

Licenses such as MIT, Apache, MPL, etc... are a double-edged sword. 😬

this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
225 points (94.8% liked)

Linux

47370 readers
775 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS