Underfunding or why I am not interested

[anatoly techtonik]

I don't like people who are think that they are different from
regular folks. Instead of helping people grow and do a sane choice,
write sane laws (or update existing), spread the knowledge on how to
communicate and clarify conflicts - they just prefer to see others as
a cattle and control them by enforcing their own social norms with
manipulative speeches. GNU project makes it really clear about it with
the logo, but these times passed. Knowledge and education is
acceptable. If you need to change the norms - change the law, ask
people what they want, make research, keep the communication going,
unless it is your religion and comfort zone. In this case I respect
your position, but not interested.


On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think some of these AGPL concerns are perfectly valid.
>
> Keep in mind, however, it is also true that there are lots of people out
> there who aren't license wonks or hardcore software freedom proponents or
> opponents. For the average people out there, they might be interested in
> contributing and using and whatever for reasons that have nothing to do with
> the license. They also might not bother to free their work or might decide
> to go proprietary not because they really think about it, but just because
> it seems reasonable to them. When they see that AGPL tells them they must
> keep the license and share their source, they do, and they don't really
> mind. They might not have had strong feelings either way.
>
> So the use of license can have a major impact on the behaviour of regular
> folks who don't care to make a fuss about it and don't care to hold a grudge
> either. They are just happy to work with the terms that seem to be the
> social norm. If the norm says, "go ahead and make your version proprietary
> if that's in your interest" that has a different effect from a social norm
> of "hey, we're all in this to share and it's your duty to respect the
> freedom downstream after your changes."
>
> I support AGPL as much for those reasons as for any pedantic legal reasons.
> In other words, I care more about encouraging that social norm than about
> the licensing details. These issues definitely interact though.
>
> Cheers,
> Aaron
>
>
> On Sun 23 Feb 2014 11:48:53 PM PST, HRJet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:53 PM, HRJet <hrjet9 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:hrjet9 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     This sort of strings-attached freedom is in my opinion not going
>>     to really matter. Vendors will just move their secret sauce to
>>     other places.
>>
>>
>> After further thought, I guess this "moving of secret sauce" is only
>> possible in GPL, because the license doesn't cross API boundaries.
>> IIRC this wouldn't be possible at all in AGPL.
>>
>> I also realized just now that "moving of secret sauce" is actually a
>> good thing from a security and privacy perspective; the secrets are
>> now in a smaller black box, which means it is easier to restrict the
>> amount of data shared with these boxes.
>>
>> So, I am beginning to like GPL, but I am still not in favour of AGPL.



-- 
anatoly t.