Licensing is a practical tactical matter. Copyleft is *often* the best tactic for the goals of software freedom, but not always. Non-free discriminatory licenses, by contrast, while well intentioned are generally a bad, even counterproductive strategy. Copyright licensing is the wrong tool for the goals. RMS does put it well: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html
@snowdrift I'll be honest this is a lot of buzzwords for me and so I might be misinterpretting, but: I view copyleft as a non-free discriminatory license, and understand that is a tactic for software freedom, but am concerned the tactic entrenches a framework of software proprietorship. @eliotberriot @alcinnz
That is indeed a misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Copyleft ONLY says that if you redistribute software, it must retain the copyleft license. It has absolutely no limitations on the use of the software and treats 100% of people/entities identically.
The stuff that article advocated for (discriminatory and non-commercial licensing), THAT stuff is a tactic that entrenches proprietorship and undermines software freedom. That's not "copyleft".
FYI, though #copyleft is certainly completely #FLO (free/libre/open) and has absolutely no commercial restrictions, the [arguably-misguided] efforts to discriminate against commercial use or commercial use by non-co-ops or similar has, in *some* circles, been referred to as #copyfarleft
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!