Mint.

My brother in christ, unix was all rights reserved. There was a non-compete agreement prohibiting at&t from selling their OS, hence why it was more or less given to universities. Later, the BSD’s did a theseus ship, and at&t still tried to claim ownership through legal methods. For them, the license symbolizes this independence from at&t, which is why it doesnt lay claims on user protection.

Look, im not even going to respond the first part. I love the bsd’s as well, from a technical standpoint. From a licensing standpoint, not so much (i see the value in a short license, though).

Im not concerned by what these companies use or do not use. Im concerned about protecting my, and other ‘common good’ software with a license that strictly prohibits user exploatation. The GPL does this perfectly.

The isc/bsd2 license does not protect the user

Yes, but this comes with restrictions on distribution of your binary/code/artifacts.

I see the value in these restrictions, but i also see why these libraries are avoided in commercial settings. These terms often come as a suprise from my understanding.

The EUPL solves this by only making claims of the actual modifications to the EUPL licensed components, not any third party user code.

This license (EUPL) was designed with cooperarion as the primary motive, and this is very valuable in my opinion.

I believe the reason we see so much permissive code is because of said suprises with the GPL’s, it defeats the utility of the license itself. I say this as an avid GPL lover, but i have also seen projects like libopencm3, which desperately needs EUPL.

On the other hand we have projects like Linux and VESC, where we absolutely positively need to kill user-exploatation dead in its tracks, mostly since it is an end-user product. The GPL serves its purpose perfectly here.

Also, you might note that the MPL is a valid choice here, but it does not offer the same protection in the case of third party extension of the licensed code, since it is file-based, in essence.

Ive actually spent a good amount of time looking into licenses, would love to hear more of your thoughts.

Here is a discussion and Here is the original author (i think) of the EUPL.

This is somewhat concerning, as im a big fan of working for free, as long as it benefits the users. I have also been looking at the EUPL as a happy middleground (it permits static linking, while any changes to the acual code is copyleft). Copyleft is important, and needs to be talked about.

Absolutely correct, its an insult to everyone involved. Open source would do, or just call it free without the ‘ware’

Sure. Although ‘tolerance’ here needs stricter defition. I would argue that the proponents of censorship are few. The victim is discourse itself, and by extent, regular imperfect people.

Absolutely. Except that the world is more complex, and there is no right answer.

The issue is not that people choose to distance themselves from the conversation.

The issue is that a powerful select few control what you do or do not hear.

Ever think about where these people come from? Isolation.

The mass censorship strategies of today only serves to divide the extremes. It fosters friction.

In my view, a sane (sanest?) policy would be to use the law as a framework of what is acceptable.

Getting billionares to silence people we do not like is not virtuous, whether it be media smear canpaigns or deplatforming.

We should care about free speech on our platforms. It is the cornerstone of civilization.