Because "Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached" implies GPL ( or CopyLeft, Non-BSD / MIT license ) have strings attached.
So the parent was asking isn't Linux Open Source but with strings attached? And if so are you happy with Linux?
Although I am assume what you meant was that Redis was originally a BSD / MIT, and re-licensing it to LGPL seems ideological. But I could be wrong.
Copyleft is a string. The default would be complete permissiveness.
If someone gave you something the correct presumption would be that you can do as you like with it, unless - and what follows are strings, like copy left.
It isn’t inherently bad, but it is what it is.
My happiness with Linux is irrelevant because Linux to my knowledge was not re licensed to be more restrictive.
>"I read the post and it’s not clear why it’s not MIT licensed. Why not allow attempts to “create proprietary distributions?” That’s what open source would allow, no? "
Your "That's what Open Source would allow", clearly implies anything but MIT / BSD license are not Open Source. Hence why people ask about Linux, which is Open Source but copy left aka non MIT / BSD.
>Edit: Linux was always GPL, Redis was not, so I don’t see the relevance.
Your first sentence implies GPL are not open source, the relevance here is why the parent ask "do you think Linux as Open Source" or happy with it. And:
>My happiness with Linux is irrelevant because Linux to my knowledge was not re licensed to be more restrictive.
Your happiness with Linux contradict with the first "quoted" sentence to what a lot of people think you meant.
Just in case, I am on the BSD / MIT camp but what you wrote create a lot of confusion.
> Copyleft is a string. The default would be complete permissiveness.
I have answered a similar line of questioning before.
Arguing strongly for permissive licenses is arguing for a kind of passive freedom which presents as freedom from obligations. Copyleft is the sort of active freedom which presents as a guarantee of rights.
I am going to assume this isn't impersonation, but Drew what happen to your old HN account? ( I had it on RSS feed and hasn't shown any update for ages I thought you left HN )
I don't see any reason why this is off-topic. Naturally the license change is a distinguishing feature of Redict and a reasonable subject for discussion.
>I don't see any reason why this is off-topic. Naturally the license change is a distinguishing feature of Redict and a reasonable subject for discussion.
I meant off topic as in asking you question about your account. Not the Open Source discussions which is of course perfectly valid. Sorry for the confusion.
A hypothetical license that said "no forks allowed" would not be an open source license. If Redis used the LGPL we could still fork it, we'd just have to use the LGPL for our fork; likewise anyone can fork Redict so long as they use the LGPL for their fork.*
* Technically you do have more options than this with the LGPL but this is a layman's explanation.
I did not say it would be an open source license. My point is simply that Redict takes something more permissive and makes it restrictive, which is true.
I don't think that's true. It's only true if freedom == freedom from obligation, which is a naive view of freedom. But if freedom == guarantees of rights, then Redict is more free. This is how freedoms actually work in practice: freedom of the press is guaranteed by restricting the government from censorship, workers rights are guaranteed by restricting the freedom of businesses to exploit them, etc. In practice all freedoms require someone to give something up. Even with permissive licenses, you are giving up the sole right to your IP and the sole to commercialize your software.
With all due respect I do not think that makes any sense.
You’re creating this metaphor with the government, but this isn’t the government.
In the end freedom is a spectrum and you are free to do more with MIT than LGPL.
Even if someone forked MIT and made it closed source that does not in any way stop or restrict those who prefer the project pre-fork.
Indeed, that is the very logic that has made Redict possible to begin with. This is the illustration of why MIT is maximally free.
Suppose the EU said code must be closed source, and you must distribute encrypted binaries. In this hypothetical it wouldn’t be possible to use Redict at all. This is another example of why the MIT, and permissiveness in general, is superior.
—-
As an aside your freedom of the press example is yet another reason for permissiveness. The government isn’t permissive by default, which is why “freedom of the press” is even a thing.
Governments, businesses, they're all just institutions and I see no reason not to use them as illustrative examples.
The MIT maximally enables exploitation; copyleft maximally enables freedom. From the point of a proprietary fork of a permissively licensed project onwards, users of the proprietary fork enjoy fewer freedoms than before. You are advocating for freedoms for the few (business owners making proprietary forks of free software for profit) at the expense of the freedom of many (everyone else).
Redict would also be possible if Redis used a copyleft license. The space for Redict to exist is not afforded to us because of the use of a permissive license in some way that Redict denies to anyone else through the use of a copyleft license.
I really don’t understand you. Even if there was a closed source fork, users would still be free to use the open source one. There is no restriction or diminishing of options. In fact, now there are even more options and thus more freedom.
I think you're missing the reciprocal nature of the arrangement here. Since you seem to assert that it's acceptable to release software under a proprietary license (and I agree with you, most of the time), you must believe that the authors of a work have a right to distribute it under whatever terms they like. So: is it appropriate for someone to say "I am willing to offer my labor to this collaborative project, and release the source code for free, and allow people to build from my work, under the condition that they extend the same rights back to everyone else"? It's much more generous than what proprietary software offers, after all.
Why is copyleft subject to more scrutiny than proprietary software for you? You suggest that permissive licenses are better because they allow permissive derivatives of the software, which suggests that permissive derivatives are good. But copyleft derivatives are... not good? Copyleft offers more freedoms than proprietary software.
Moreover, this line of reasoning completely disregards the social contract. Many people worked on, used, popularized Redis under the presumption that they were participating in a collaborative effort from which all participants would benefit, only -- surprise -- now the trademark holder has changed the terms so that only they benefit from a product of which, by objective measures, 80% was made by the community.
So the parent was asking isn't Linux Open Source but with strings attached? And if so are you happy with Linux?
Although I am assume what you meant was that Redis was originally a BSD / MIT, and re-licensing it to LGPL seems ideological. But I could be wrong.