I really don't get why people even start with permissive licenses if they have people they don't like to use their software or if they're just going to go "not like that" at the first real use.

It seems like many times it's open source but "just to look".

▲

palata 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

They say:

> In some extreme cases, in-development feature code was being lifted straight out of our personal forks and published without attribution or lazily rewritten with LLM assistance to obfuscate its origin.

Permissive licences require attribution. It's okay to complain when people publish your permissively-licenced work without attribution, and hence without honouring the licence.

▲

bredren a day ago | parent [-]

There are legal remedies to this that can be taken before changing the license entirely.

These remedies would still be needed to actively police misuse of the new license.

	▲	marsmaps a day ago \| parent [-]
		changing the licence is much cheaper than pursuing legal action, and sends an immediate and very public signal of disapproval. given that legal remedies would be required either way, and are extremely time-consuming and expensive, it makes sense to send the signal first

▲

nextaccountic 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They explain that they expected that MIT licensed code would encourage contributions from BSD OSes

I agree it was a poor choice of license and that GPL helps build a better community, I'm glad they mad ethe license choice

▲

bentley 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Because permissive licensing, and free software in general, rightfully comes with a certain cachet, and it turns out some people want the benefits of that reputation, but don’t actually believe in the freedom “to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose.” Hence the treadmill from permissive licensing to copyleft, and then later from copyleft to “source available”…

“But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.”

—Theo de Raadt (2001)

▲

SXX 2 days ago | parent [-]

That'a weird how you placed copyleft next to source available side of spectrum.

That's opposite because copyleft is ultimately about user freedom not developers freedom.

GPL wont help Asahi team for a bit.

▲

nextaccountic 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> That's opposite because copyleft is ultimately about user freedom not developers freedom.

Yeah, the whole idea of GPL is to restrict developers from doing certain things, because it would be harmful to users

▲

avadodin 2 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

nextaccountic 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The moment you produce anything of value, it is taken from you

Nobody is forced to license their software using GPL though

▲

avadodin 2 days ago | parent [-]

Nobody. Just the workers who want to add to the project the yoke of which they have been forced to live under.

I don't feel like arguing with FSF/Iron Curtain types, anyways.

If somebody has a non-exploitative Liberty-based argument for the GPL, I will hear it.

	▲	DaSHacka 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		No one is being forced to use or contribute back to the project though. In fact, you can even use GPL licensed software, and so long as everyone with the binaries doesn't ever request the source, you do not have to publish it at all.

▲

Y_Y 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Fresh argument, you should take it to usenet

▲

jwrallie a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, the whole point of GPL is that people can fork it and improve it as long as they share the code back.

If Asahi is rejecting LLM produced code, then they will get the modified source but will be unable to use it because of their own rules.