Comment

Comment on FUTO Keyboard: The Discussion Behind A Cool Product

Outside of software spaces the discussion around copyright seems so much more nuanced. Any creative commons license is generally considered “copyleft” regardless of the details, and some are far more restrictive than the FUTO license. Consider projects like Wikipedia which accept content licensed under GDFL, or CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, Apache 2.0, or PD.

I am not a programmer, so maybe I am missing a huge piece of context, but what is the insistence in the free software community for what seems like total license purity? I even see software engineers arguing that “everyone” should use Apache or MIT and not the other, which is somehow bad for the FOSS community. What am I missing? Isn’t more free better than less free?

source

Sort:hotnew top

mke@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I might not be the best person to explain this, but I believe you’re misunderstanding.

Outside of software spaces the discussion around copyright seems so much more nuanced.

Inside software spaces, specific needs beget specific discussions. They are as nuanced as they need to be.

Did you know [Creative Commons] themselves recommend against using CC licenses for software?

source
- gedaliyah@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Thank you - I would love to read any resources that you have
  
  source
  - mke@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Well, that’s wonderful to read!
    
    If you’re wondering what sort of issue being careless with licenses can cause, see the (in)famous case of Tivoization. GPL 3 was written partly to solve issues like this.
    
    The Free Software Foundation explicitly forbade tivoization in version 3 of the GNU General Public License.
    Wikipedia
    
    For a more recent example of how community/contributors and owner/company interest misalignment can make a huge mess, see the consequences of HashiCorp changing the Terraform license from MPL to BUSL. Relevant facts I’d like to note:
    
    This caused a large split in the community and with HC (“drama”)
    
    This was only possible due to their CLA (Contributor License Agreement) requirement for contributors.
    
    This eventually resulted in the birth of OpenTofu, a fork of Terraform managed by the Linux Foundation.
    
    Or, for a lighter case:
    
    A while back I saw a project on GitHub licensed as CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. The developer was considering writing a guide for contributors, even though I’m pretty sure you can’t fork and modify it to open a PR (popular way to offer contributions), because that’d break the ND clause (sharing derivatives). Were people supposed to e-mail the developer with patches? Who knows! There are people into that, like the Linux Kernel folks.
    
    And finally, here’s what I thought was a very interesting take on what free means when talking about software licenses, touching upon obligations, rights and copyleft.
    
    source
    gedaliyah@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Thanks, I appreciate it. I’ll check it out.
    
    source