| |
| ▲ | gilrain an hour ago | parent [-] | | > more open choice because it forces the project A true morality must be based on consent, not coercion. Humanity may not be there yet, and therein lies the argument for force (and thus copyleft); but the ultimate goal should always be to reduce its necessity. | | |
| ▲ | skeledrew 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I see this, and the spiritual example that immediately comes to mind is that which is labeled as "crime". Would it be more moral that a murderer must first consent to being judged and sentenced, or that there is a system which automatically comes into play to hopefully deter but also punish it when it happens? | |
| ▲ | datakan 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s not coercion. You’re free to not use it, or alternatively do what these folks did, write your own. Coercion would be forcing people to use it through some mechanism, which clearly isn’t possible with GPL. | |
| ▲ | jcelerier 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Allowing closed-source to exist is always the less moral choice for many reasons (one example being ecological sustainability) | |
| ▲ | kennywinker 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is this not the paradox of tolerance restated in different terms? BSD license is unrestricted, it tolerates taking open source and closing it, thus always being at risk of things closing down. GPL license doesn’t tolerate taking from open source and closing it, thus ensuring things stay open. | | |
| ▲ | KZerda 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The BSD license is why we have Valkey and not a purely closed-source Redis. It would have been much easier to perform the rugpull if Redis had initially been GPLed. | | |
| ▲ | kennywinker 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | On top of badreligion42’s point, that both licenses allow forking just as easily - don’t you have the rugpull part backwards? Afaik BSD licensed stuff can be re-licensed under any more closed licenses at any time, where as to re-license GPL, you need consent from every single contributor. But i’m not familiar with the redis-valkey story so, maybe there is some nuance i am missing? | |
| ▲ | badreligion42 22 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | And how exactly did the BSD license make creating Valkey easier? GPL and BSD licenses both have the source in the open. Anyone creating a fork, can easily do so for either BSD or GPL licensed projects. Since Redis is a database, which the user won't be using a binary of, even using a fork of a supposedly GPL-licensed Redis would not require you to share your modifications with your user, same as BSD. | | |
| ▲ | KZerda 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The BSD license made forking Valkey easier because it ensures that everyone has equal footing. The GPL, especially with contributor license agreements and the like, makes it much more easy for a single party to control the direction of the product. For another example of this happening, look at MongoDB. It started out under the AGPL, but was rugpulled to a non-free license. |
|
|
|
|
|
