Comment by lelanthran
1 month ago
> Equally I think the idea that OSS should move towards a transactional kind of relationship is just as bad.
GPL is transactional; that's the whole point. What you are calling OSS includes GPL, true, but it also includes BSD/MIT, which are not transactional.
To be clear; I don't consider GPL to be completely free software.
I also don't think all software needs to be free. I also don't think all software needs to be a gift. (But then I just said the same thing twice.) The part that I care about is which direction the default [default definition?] shifts.
In my perfect world, more code would be MIT not GPL. But in my perfect world, the GPL wouldn't be useful in practice. The world is far from perfect.
> To be clear; I don't consider GPL to be completely free software.
Well, yeah. I think we agree. That's why I said it is transactional - you get software in exchange for any future potential improvement you make to it.
It's a transaction.
MIT is not transactional, it's charity - you get software without having to trade anything for it.
If people make their software MIT or GPL, they should not complain when it is used in a way that they are unhappy with. With MIT, it can be used in almost any way the user wants, including closing it off, and depriving the community of improvements.