undefined | Better HN

0 pointsendisneigh2y ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

drewdevault2y ago· 2 in thread

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.

endisneighOP2y ago

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.

drewdevault2y ago

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.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse