|
|
|
|
|
|
by burntsushi
3287 days ago
|
|
|
> Put simply, I don't agree (obviously). Right. That's reasonable. The point of my comment was to express disagreement with something that seems obviously true to you. I'm happy about the decrease in copyleft for its own sake. I dislike copyleft because I dislike intellectual property, on which, copyleft relies upon. (There's no need to debate this further. I've done it many times already.) > It's just a shame that people are willing to stunt their own languages just to make a point about licensing. You say "stunt," I say "free." Mischaracterizing this into a group of people indulging in some trivial holy war is absurd. Others are more practical than me. Languages are permissively licensed to drive adoption. Regardless of the theory of copyleft, and regardless of rationality, people are afraid of it and stay away from it. |
|
|
I promise I won't debate this further, I just wanted to say that I also dislike the concept of intellectual property. The reason I like copyleft is because it takes the draconian machinery of copyright and puts it to work protecting users.
Yes, it inconveniences developers, but I think users are more important. You wouldn't prioritise the "right to jerry-rig" of bridge architects over the people who use their bridges.
> You say "stunt," I say "free."
I'm not sure how making it harder to change out parts of a compiled program makes the language "more free". It's a feature that's missing.
> Languages are permissively licensed to drive adoption.
I don't disagree with that (though I think compiler _implementations_ should be copylefted). But that's not the point, my point was that if you can't replace parts of a compiled program then LGPL loses its appeal.