@miria As in you can't modify it or copyleft is gay?
@miria The GPL goes a bit far in not meshing well with other code, I like the MPL because it works like a dual license, but the compromise of "I give you code, you give me code back" is pretty fair.
I don't care about their "freedom" to restrict others from using "their" modified code, I wouldn't want some kike running off with my code.
@miria You're not free. Which is why you need licenses that nullify copyright law.
I guess you could make a license that's something like "you don't need to share the source code but people are allowed to disassemble your binaries", but my opinion is just "fuck them".
For personal reasons the license doesn't apply to you. And I don't care about the "freedom" of corps.
>You're not free so you need (thing)
No. I as a free person decide that.
>copyright law
No one's talking about copyright law.
@miria No, I mean nullifying it forever, not just in your instance. With CC0 someone can clone it, change it, and not allow anyone to change it because now it's "their copyright". GPL, CC-BY-SA, and MLP prevent anyone who copies it from preventing further people from copying it
Only way you can argue that it's "not free" is because you're forced to share the source code, but that doesn't apply if it's something like art, music, or a non-compiled script, where distributing means distributing the "source".
>you're forced to share the source code
Yes. That's a restriction on my freedom. In addition to being forced to redistribute under the same license. What if I want to use another license? Well I can't. But I'm free, supposedly.
@miria Ye, so essentially just make a license that goes "Any media distributed from this source code or it's end products follow the same license that allows further decompilation, modifacation, and distribution"
>What if I want to use another license?
That's literally "what if I want to use laws to restrict someones freedom? Preventing me from doing that is restricting my freedom". At least when it applies only to end products.
@miria
>what laws
>no one's talking about copyright
What do you think a license is? Are you really confused that copyright is involved with the concept of copyleft?
Am I being forced to do something?
Yes? Bad.
No? Good.
The GPL forces me to do something. Therefore bad.
>Am I being forced to do something?
>Yes? Bad.
>No? Good.
So that applies to copyright law, yes? If you can use your copyright to make a piece of work more free by nullifying copyright, then the overall amount of freedom is increased
If you care about being forced to share the source code, that's fine. Copyleft just means you can't change the license. You could have the same thing just with a different idea of redistribution.
It's also kinda self defeating. You can't argue that you have the right to license your modification in whatever way you want but the original person doesn't have the right to license the way they want (like copyleft).
@miria I agreed with all that in the message you're replying to. I don't think you quite get what I'm saying.
>So that applies to copyright law, yes?
Yes. Copyright law is terrible.
>If you can use your copyright to make a piece of work more free by nullifying copyright
The GPL does a hell of a lot more than that. And most of what it does is make a piece of work less free, not more.