226
"The largest campaign ever to stop publishers destroying games". (www.youtube.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://stopkillinggames.com/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Copyleft licenses do force you to do certain things, like make your changes to the code available, and AGPL was made specifically to patch some GPL loopholes. They are technically less free than something like Apache which is essentially "do whatever you want, IDC..."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    As far as I understand, you only have to make your changes to the code available to users of your software. You are free to make any modifications as long as you keep them to yourself and don't share the binaries (or access the service, in case of AGPL) with anyone. I might be mistaken, though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're correct, but the point is that it's forcing you to do something. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it is less free than Apache or MPL

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Ah I get what you mean, I used to share your same view. I used to think that the MIT license was more free than GPL for the reasons you mentioned.

    When Google started working on Fuchsia OS and they said it will be MIT license, I started to get worried that smart products producers would start using it instead of Linux. Then they wouldn't need to release the source code to customers as the software would no longer be GPL.

    The difference is that MIT gives more freedom to the producers, while GPL gives more freedom to the consumers.

    Personally, my sympathy goes to consumers, not producers, thus I understood why people say GPL is more free than say Apache or MIT.

    Licenses such as MIT, Apache, MPL, etc... are a double-edged sword. 😬

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Which are more free depends how you look at it. If we limit the scope to just us then having no restrictions is more free than a copyleft licenses that have any restrictions. If we also consider our users then being able to do what we want includes not giving the same level of freedom to our users, and the same applies to our user's users. A restriction on us denying freedom ensures gives freedom to others.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    If we also consider our users

    GPL doesn't give your users any benefits, only headaches. It does benefit your user's users, and yourself.

    But I get what you're writing. While I agree GPL is better, I don't agree it's more free. Enforced freedom can't be more free than absolute freedom. Purely from a philosophical standpoint.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    I'm of the opinion that a cookie on your desk takes more willpower to resist eating rather it being in a locked box in the kitchen. I consider even devs with good intentions to not have perfect resistance to temptation at all times, and so being legally compelled to not deny users software freedom via AGPL is a benefit to my users as it helps them resist any temptation 😇

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent