[–] desktopninja 5y ago ↗ Maybe its time to fork and have two distinct models:FreeSource, free as in freedom. Without rules there is no freedom.OpenSource, free as in free beer. Beer costs money.And not use an umbrella term because it adds way too much ambiguity. [–] brudgers 5y ago ↗ The confusion is deliberate.Copyleft curtails the options of capital interests."Open source" creates turbidity that obscures the win-lose pursuit of self-interest allowed by other licenses.I'm not saying there's anything wrong with MIT or BSD.Only that they are primarily structured to serve the interests of wealth and power.
[–] brudgers 5y ago ↗ The confusion is deliberate.Copyleft curtails the options of capital interests."Open source" creates turbidity that obscures the win-lose pursuit of self-interest allowed by other licenses.I'm not saying there's anything wrong with MIT or BSD.Only that they are primarily structured to serve the interests of wealth and power.
2 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 17.3 ms ] threadFreeSource, free as in freedom. Without rules there is no freedom.
OpenSource, free as in free beer. Beer costs money.
And not use an umbrella term because it adds way too much ambiguity.
Copyleft curtails the options of capital interests.
"Open source" creates turbidity that obscures the win-lose pursuit of self-interest allowed by other licenses.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with MIT or BSD.
Only that they are primarily structured to serve the interests of wealth and power.