this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
986 points (88.5% liked)

linuxmemes

21378 readers
1305 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
    • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
    • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
    •  

    Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
    poopsmith@lemmy.world
    zephyr@lemmy.world
    rtxn@lemmy.world
    986
    With GPL, you're programming Freedom. With MIT, you're programming for free. (lemmy.world)
    submitted 5 months ago by renzev@lemmy.world to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
    251 comments fedilink hide all child comments
     

    Context:

    Permissive licenses (commonly referred to as "cuck licenses") like the MIT license allow others to modify your software and release it under an unfree license. Copyleft licenses (like the Gnu General Public License) mandate that all derivative works remain free.

    Andrew Tanenbaum developed MINIX, a modular operating system kernel. Intel went ahead and used it to build Management Engine, arguably one of the most widespread and invasive pieces of malware in the world, without even as much as telling him. There's nothing Tanenbaum could do, since the MIT license allows this.

    Erik Andersen is one of the developers of Busybox, a minimal implementation of that's suited for embedded systems. Many companies tried to steal his code and distribute it with their unfree products, but since it's protected under the GPL, Busybox developers were able to sue them and gain some money in the process.

    Interestingly enough, Tanenbaum doesn't seem to mind what intel did. But there are some examples out there of people regretting releasing their work under a permissive license.

    (page 6) 11 comments
    sorted by: hot top controversial new old
    [–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml -5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

    We are at risk

    of losing many developers who would otherwise choose a license like the GPL. Fortunately, I'm glad to be surrounded by people, just like you, who care about licenses like GPL. By uploading this type of content and engaging with it, be show our commitment to it. I wish to suggest how we can deal with this threat.

    We will lose developers who choose GPL if we use words that suggest GPL is "restrictive". Sure, the word "restrictive" was avoided in this meme by using the word "copyleft", but the cognitive jump from "permissive" to "restrictive" is minimal: just add an "opposite" and you've got "permissive is the opposite to restrictive". It really is that simple. That's how brain works (check out Relational Frame Theory to see how that works).

    So what can we do about it?

    Well, we can approach this with science. There is a historical global trend towards people being more meta-cognitive. That means that people are becoming more aware of how our thoughts interpret everyday reality and how to be intentional with our relationship with our thoughts so that we live better lives. We know this trend is happening to virtually everyone everywhere because of the work of brilliant sociologists like Anthony Giddens and Christian Welzel. Heck, even the history of psychology —going from noticing and changing behaviors (behaviorism) to noticing and changing behaviors and thoughts (cognitive-behaviorism), to noticing and changing the context and function of behaviors, thoughts, and emotions (functional contextualism)— reflects this trend.

    We can use meta-cognition in our favor; we can use the meta-cognitive tool of framing to change how we think about GPL and MIT licenses. Effective communicators like influencers, political campaign experts, and influential activists use framing all the time. For example, instead of using the dangerous framing that suggests GPL is 'restrictive', we can use another one that truly displays the virtues of the license.

    What would this other frame look like? I may not have a perfect answer, but here are some

    ways of framing (thinking about) the relationship between licenses like GPL and MIT:

    (ironically!!!, these were 'suggested' by an LLM; I wonder if these frames already existed)

    • "Investment-Protecting Licenses" vs. "Investment-Risking Licenses" (as in developers invest by working on projects that they could (not) lose the ability to contribute to)
    • "Community-Resource-Guarding Licenses" vs. "Exploitation-Vulnerable Licenses"
    • "Give-and-Take Licenses" vs. "Take-and-Keep Licenses" ⭐
    • "Freedom-Ensuring Licenses" vs. "Freedom-Risking Licenses" ⭐
    • "Contribution-Rewarding Licenses" vs. "Contribution-Exploiting Licenses"
    • "Open-Source-Preserving Licenses" vs. "Closed-Source-Enabling Licenses"

    I'd be happy to hear what you think, including suggestions!

    load more comments (4 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: ‹ prev next ›