Philosophically, I see it as forced charity is no longer a true charity paradox.
Or, a copyright troll is functionally indifferent from a copyleft troll.
It is important to keep the path clear for kids to build their own success stories. =3
Or, a copyright troll is functionally indifferent from a copyleft troll.
It is important to keep the path clear for kids to build their own success stories. =3
Why does it have to be forced? Why can't murder just be legal and if you want to murder that's fine and if you don't, that's fine too...
It was not forced charity from the original author. They were free to choose any license. The original author is the only one in the position to choose to be charitable or not. No one else's opinion on charity matters.
Rather being thoughtful and principled enough to choose a copyleft license is the truest charity of all and the most valuable for all other consumers forever after.
It's forced on everyone else after that, but I see no problem with that because remind me again just what exactly is the terrible burden being forced again?
If I get something from you and the only terms are not money but simply attribute and share-alike, that is not some burden.
That's like saying the only terms are you can have this for free and you can use it for any purpose you want, but just promise not to punch me in the face. "What? Outrageous! It's totally unreasonable to make it a condition enforced by law that I can't punch you in the face and still take your stuff."
I would suggest reading "A Clockwork Orange", as it highlights why compulsory ethics is no longer just without free will. Spoiler, even if people lobotomize a murderer to have their behavior meet an arbitrary definition of societal good it is just as unethical.
>It's forced on everyone else after that, but I see no problem with that because remind me again just what exactly is the terrible burden being forced again?
Adding what is effectively an end user copyright DRM submarine under the flag of FOSS is tantamount to sabotage.
I do not see the distinction between copyright and copyleft trolls. They both demand end users give up freedoms to meet a selfish ideal.
If someone wants to control how people use their stuff, than just stop calling it a FOSS work. Some seem very passionate about the subject, but I don't think anyone has ever been murdered over shitty code. =3
Ok buddy whatever you say.
These arguments are so ridiculously invalid I'll trade you a Clockwork Orange for a "not even wrong" suggested google.
Talk about "passionate about the subject" indeed.
You think it's just awful? Ok.
You wouldn't operate a food bank and give 1000 cans of beans to someone who plans to throw them through the windows of cars. You only give the beans to people who you think are going to eat the beans. Same with software. Free software is given to make the world better, not to make it worse.
Again, disguising a commercial work as FOSS is silly behavior... One can demand whatever you like in the EULA, but it only ever hurts honest players. =3