It sounds like you are trying to define freedom as Stallman would. Based on that, here are his “4 freedoms”…
1. The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
2. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Which of the above does MIT not provide? Honestly, which one?
What you seem to be looking for is to take away the ability for somebody who writes NEW code to be able to choose a license for it. You want to take away their freedom?
And why exactly? What “user freedom” does this serve?
Well, it forces that users will get access to FUTURE code that developers write.
I think it is a stretch to suggest that a developer writing new code makes existing users less free. Forcing a license for the new code certainly does make the developer less free though.
If “having the freedom to take away freedom does not make a society more free” then the only morally acceptable choice is to stop using the GPL. Is that what you were trying to say?
It uses indentured neural networks to write code for you. You're a neural network! You just have rights because you ain't digital (and way larger and possibly using quantum effects). Smh
tristan957|1 year ago
MIT takes freedom away from end users at the expense of the developer's freedom.
LeFantome|1 year ago
It sounds like you are trying to define freedom as Stallman would. Based on that, here are his “4 freedoms”…
1. The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
2. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Which of the above does MIT not provide? Honestly, which one?
What you seem to be looking for is to take away the ability for somebody who writes NEW code to be able to choose a license for it. You want to take away their freedom?
And why exactly? What “user freedom” does this serve?
Well, it forces that users will get access to FUTURE code that developers write.
I think it is a stretch to suggest that a developer writing new code makes existing users less free. Forcing a license for the new code certainly does make the developer less free though.
If “having the freedom to take away freedom does not make a society more free” then the only morally acceptable choice is to stop using the GPL. Is that what you were trying to say?
novagameco|1 year ago
shrimp_emoji|1 year ago