[charles_f]

> shift the default in open source from “it’s free for anyone to use” to “please don’t use this if you’re evil”

Point the author makes is precisely that they don't want to do free software, and they'd like to convince you not to do free software

[smeej]

There are already so many ways (and reasons) not to do free or open source software. People who find them convincing are using them. People who don't generally are not.

It seems like the author of the post is just potentially having a change of mind from one side to the other, which barely even seems noteworthy.

[O_H_E]

> There are already so many ways (and reasons) not to do free or open source software. People who find them convincing are using them.

To be honest, I don't think the space between GPL/MIT and commercial closed source is explored enough. I'm aware there's a few examples of things in between, but they are not common knowledge and they don't satisfy everyone. It is not a space that is easy to search online for established wisdom and comparisons in.

[gtirloni]

Source Available licenses + commercial agreements seem to cover that middle ground well.

[handoflixue]

Basically every argument has been made before, but there's still 10,000 people a day who are just finding out about it for the first time (https://xkcd.com/1053/)

Clearly this sparked enough discussion and upvotes to make it to the front page of Hacker News, so people found it valuable.

[lelanthran]

> Point the author makes is precisely that they don't want to do free software, and they'd like to convince you not to do free software

Sure, but they are not suggesting any practical alternative by issuing a license that essentially boils down to "Please don't use this if you are evil".

Saying that the author has an almost childlike understanding of what the word "evil" means is something of a slur against actual children - I've got a 6 year old who understands subjective morals better than this author does.