Comment by matheusmoreira
5 hours ago
> now we can just focus on hacking
Well, I can't do that. Releasing software under permissive licenses is just wealth transfer from well meaning hackers straight into the pockets of corporations. It just gives it all away, no questions asked.
For me it's either AGPLv3 or all rights reserved. I'm trending towards the latter now. I'm starting to question whether I should even publish my work.
> For me it's either AGPLv3 or all rights reserved. I'm trending towards the latter now.
Then for you it was never about freedom and community, which were the two major goals the Free Software movement were founded on, it was about leveraging copyleft for income generation. Everyone needs to make a living, and that is totally fine, but when you say "Pretty sad from the free software movement's perspectice [sic]." what you really meant was "pretty sad from the perspective of using this license to generate income". Which, again, no judgement, it just changes the meaning of your post.
It is about freedom, but also about not being exploited.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120620103603/http://zedshaw.co...
> Why I (A/L)GPL
> Open source to open source, corporation to corporation.
> If you do open source, you’re my hero and I support you.
> If you’re a corporation, let’s talk business.
> I want people to appreciate the work I’ve done and the value of what I’ve made.
> Not pass on by waving “sucker” as they drive their fancy cars.
https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/
> To the Beggar Baron, open source's value is its free donation.
> You would never stand on the street and offer to buy the wallets off people who are about to donate a few dollars to you. That'd be stupid.
> They're giving you their money for free. Take it and run.
It's all about the community, about helping our fellow hackers out there, empowering them to take ownership of their computers and use them to the fullest extent.
It's not about helping corporations make billions without cutting us in.
The practice of selling permission to violate the GPL is literally blessed by Stallman, by the way. I even emailed him to confirm.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html
So the notion that this goes against the principles of the movement holds absolutely no water.
AGPLv3 gave corporations a choice: either comply and uphold the moral principles of software freedom, or fund development in exchange for permission to violate it. While permissive licenses just give it all away free of charge, AGPLv3 leverages: either we get freedom, or we get paid.