[triknomeister]

Definition of freedom has changed in cloud era. The idea behind GPL was, if you modify your code and distribute it, you need to contribute back the changes, with the wider goal of increasing the commons. All the legalese was just to make sure that the idea worked.

In the era of cloud, distribution needs to include distribution over wire, because so many apps are now run in the cloud. And that's why AGPL. It preserves the spirit of GPL in modern times.

[sneak]

Yes, this idea that you must “contribute back” is itself an infringement on privacy, and is why copyleft licenses are falling out of favor of things like MIT.

The spirit of the GPL was never a good idea.

[megatron2009]

Not the OP, but here’s how I see it: freedom doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Whether it’s in society or in software, real freedom comes with some responsibility. You can’t just take, take, take and expect the ecosystem to stay healthy. That’s not how any of this works.

Same thing applies to free software. If we actually care about keeping that world alive, there’s gotta be some duty baked in—some expectation to contribute back, or at least not strip-mine the commons and bounce.

MIT’s blown up mostly because the big players don’t need the broader free software community anymore. They’ve got the scale, the headcount, and the cash to build and maintain their own internal ecosystems. So from their POV, permissive licenses like MIT are perfect—no obligations, no copyleft, no friction.

But let’s not pretend that’s “freedom” in the idealistic sense. It’s freedom to extract, sure. Freedom to integrate and forget where it came from. For a lot of people on HN, that’s fine. But if you care about the sustainability of the broader ecosystem? Then yeah, we’ve got to talk about duty, not just rights.