>This is exactly what should happen
We clearly have some fundamentally different views here, don't pretend I made a mistake.
>if you don't like it you can suggest a change
>unless it's something I don't like
I'll just stick to the ISC license, thanks.
If you have no need for copyleft then ISC license is a fine license.
>I can't believe I have to actually have a conversation with someone and avoid saying things they don't like if I want them to do something!
You are free to write your own license, you can't force other people to put stuff in theirs. However many free software licenses are made based on community feedback from people who actually use the license. If you don't use the license and you seem to take an interest in disparaging the community then why do you care?
>If you're using a copyleft license then it's assumed that you need its benefits that non-copyleft licenses don't
This is not implied. It's imposed by the author regardless of your own ideals.
Ironically, you're only considering 1 level deep while the GPL is systemic. It persists through derivatives and maintainers.
The opinions and ideals of the community are intentionally disregarded, placing power of choice on a single entity rather than each individual.
It's textbook tyranny.
Look at your own post.
>If your company either can't afford to to comply with that or doesn't want to, they should seriously think about why they need to remove the user's freedom in such a way.
There's no actual reason or basis for this other than the authors own personal opinion. Is that really justifiable? Is it really okay to opress some people just because you and your organizations don't personally agree with them?
Why hold that power instead of leaving it in the hands of the people. Why is there a necessity to ensure specific behavior is followed by law?
This serves no actual purpose other than to push personal ideologies.
This is anything but free, or helpful.
>you might consider not being in a technical field anymore, because it's special conditions all the way down.
What manner of conflation is this?
I doubt your sincerity. To lump together generic conditions with legal clauses. Preposterous.
Use the apache license
>prevents patent trolling
>no license lock-in
>If you don't use the license and you seem to take an interest in disparaging the community then why do you care?
Because how other people license their projects affects me. Isn't that the whole point of the GPL? How are you blind to this?
>to open source their software
You mean to make their software free.
>placing power of choice on a single entity rather than each individual.
>Textbook tyranny
Yes, you describe copyright perfectly. Unfortunately we are stuck with it, and so some of us are forced to use copyleft to work around other people abusing the system.
>Is it really okay to oppress some people just because you and your organizations don't personally agree with them?
This is classic blackmail which is to claim that if someone doesn't let you abuse someone else (in this case, the users of the software) then you are the one suffering abuse and torment. Do not fall for this.
You can take that up with proprietary developers, the only reason copyleft is needed is because they poisoned the well.
>the only reason copyleft is needed
But it's not.
>Unfortunately we are stuck with it
This is not a defense. When you intentionally choose to use copyright while knowing the problems of it, you are forcing it on others. We are "stuck" with it because you choose to use it. How is this not obvious? It's a choice, it's not innate.
>forced
Poppycock. Only the users are forced, the author makes the choice willingly and preemptively.
>This is classic blackmail which is to claim that if someone doesn't let you abuse someone else (in this case, the users of the software) then you are the one suffering abuse and torment. Do not fall for this.
I want you to consider the implications I mentioned already, how it is the users who suffer most at the legal behest of the GPL and the authors who choose it.
The GPL in itself is abusive and oppressive. When you choose to use the GPL you choose selective oppression by default.
Without the GPL, neither abuse nor oppression is implied.
It's just assumed that it will happen according to GPL advocates. This is not a reasonable basis, it's nothing more than speculation, used to manipulate people.
They only have to trick you once and your software will harm each successive fork inherently.
With liberal licenses, it's a case by case basis, and never harmful by default.
>It's just assumed that it will happen according to GPL advocates. This is not a reasonable basis, it's nothing more than speculation, used to manipulate people.
Reminder this is how gun grabbers are currently trying to erode American freedom.
>guns have the potential to be bad, thus they should be explicitly forbidden
Is this reasonable?