nostr:npub1j87rgjtftxaux3xd5nhthwavm3907ywnu8x0z0uywqntsv57vajshl3hzx changed my opinions on open source licenses, which I’ve held for over a decade, with a single sentence… “all foss licenses other than MIT require some form of state power to enforce” . Meaning, all of the common open source licenses support, and rely on, the State’s coercion through violence.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Well, we wouldn't need free software licenses if there weren't governments to enforce copyright laws in the first place.

Then stop using them.

But since *they* rely on government enforcement, if we don't fight back in kind then we'll get trampled and for no good reason.

Also, MIT does require enforcement: it says that the copyright notice must be preserved in all distributed copies. That requires enforcement.

🤔 I will think about this.

It’s interesting 🤔

Whats the purpose of Foss licenses?

Ask your mommy.

nostr:npub1vyrx2prp0mne8pczrcvv38ahn5wahsl8hlceeu3f3aqyvmu8zh5s7kfy55

Is all tort law state coercion?

How does "you have permission do use this under these circumstances" necessitate state violence?

Enforcement

Isn't the whole point of Free Software designed to be copyleft, and to do whatever you wanted under a license like GPL?