• woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      People making those comments don’t realize that much of the desktop Linux stack is MIT/BSD licensed anyway. It’s also not like those “permissive licenses bad” people would delete all such licensed software from their system because the result would be unusable.

    • MilitantVegan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      The number of users being those who would rather leverage the software for free, and then resell a walled garden version with proprietary extensions.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        If the proprietary extensions don’t add significant value, nobody would buy it in the first place.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        That’s the beautiful thing about gifting software with permissive licenses (when one wants to): it’s a gift and anyone can do whatever they want with it for free.

        ETA: I DO think that it is important for one who chooses to license software permissively to be informed about their decision and its implications. But, just like consent in other areas, as long as one enters into it intentionally and with the understanding of what the license means, it’s noone’s place to judge (and, like consent in other interpersonal areas, the license can be revoked/modified at any time - with a new version). Honestly, really weird of those that take issue with individuals choosing to gift their software to humanity - there’s way more interesting and useful things to engage in in the FLOSS landscape.