Recent searches
Search options
the latest conversation of @BrodieOnLinux and the #Futo guy on the #TechOverTea podcast was quite interesting.
What I found strange is how they separate licenses by being #OpenSource or #FreeSoftware. AFAIK, most popular licenses like GPL, MIT, BSD, MPL, etc. conform to both the #FSF and the #OSI standards. I guess what they meant was #CopyLeft vs permissive licenses?
BTW, even copyleft is permissive. all it does is grant permissions, though well-delimited ones. it's copyright that does the prohibiting. "lax permissive" or "pushover" are better qualifiers for non-copyleft licenses
@lxo I guess it depends on the point of view.
I use "permissive" for MIT and BSD licenses, because they are not restricting developers. Free software is freedom for the users, not the developers. "Permissive" means that the developers are permitted to take away the right of their users by locking down a derivative or redistributed work that was originally free software.
Like, how a "Permissive" regulation might let you cause damage to others without consequence.