| > Agree in some ways. Still, discussing the nitty gritty is superfluous, the important underlying message you are making is more existential. It's an important conversation to have. I remember a particular developer...I'll be honest, I remember his name, but I remember him being a pretty controversial figure here, so I'll pretend not to know them to avoid reflexive downvotes...but this developer made a particular argument that I always felt was compelling. > If you do open source, you’re my hero and I support you. If you’re a corporation, let’s talk business. The developer meant this in the context of preferring the GPL as a license, but the problem with the GPL is that it still treats all comers equally. It's very possible for a corporation to fork a GPL project and simply crush the original project by throwing warm bodies at their projects. Such a project no longer represents the interests of the free software community as a whole, but its maintainers specifically. I also think that this can apply to projects that are alternatives to popular GPL projects, except for the license being permissive. We need to revisit the four freedoms, because I no longer think they are fit for purpose. |