I think the ontology of Free Software License users is a fascinating topic that sees too little light.
This post highlights the following categories:
* BSD-school -- Copyright/IP shouldn't exist, people may do what they wish with code, share it or not, but credit should be given at least... Honestly, kinda libertarian. BSD, ISC, WTFPL, and similar
* BSD-school (radical) -- Copyright law shouldn't exist, and even a requirement to give credit where due is too much. Software anarchists. WTFPL, Unlicense, etc
* Businesses (permissive) -- PaaS and other companies that wish to drink from the stream of existing code, but not worry about making changes and not releasing them. Apache-2.0, second-choice of BSD, ISC, etc
* Free Software Activists -- The GNU school, everything is about user freedom to modify any software they use. AGPL, GPLv3, etc
* Businesses (Upstarts? Free-software weaponizers?) -- They use free software to lure in idealistic hackers, while also using it as a tool to negotiate with Businesses (permissive) to make money. Dual license SSPL/GPL+something permissive,
I think that's roughly the list discussed in the post. I would like to further add a few categories to this list from my perspective:
* Free Software Activists (with outreach) -- GNU school of thought, but with a desire to do outreach; they believe in user freedom, but would rather their code be used copyleft than not used, thus settle for the LGPL. LGPL
* Open-source Advocate -- Developers who believe in open source as a means of collaboration and improvement of software, not as an ideal related to IP law. This interpretation stems largely from people working at Businesses (permissive) which use this sort of open source as a PR tool or attempt at free labour. Apache-2, BSD, etc
* Business (PR/Image) -- A company that publishes open source software to attract developers in any of the previous camps, to create PR, and/or to crowd-source free labour. Distinct from Business (permissive) because (permissive) is about taking and using software, not releasing it, but there is likely overlap. Apache-2, BSD, etc.
I'd like to hear any thoughts others might have on whether there are more ontologies, whether any of these are inaccurate, or whether any of these are poorly categorized.
I've studied philosophy for many years and still ontology seems like much too much a philosophy jargon word to use on HN. (You write as if everyone will understand you.) Well, maybe programmers generally use/know it, sorry if so.
It started in philosophy, but it has spread to the CS field. I doubt most developers I work with would understand the word, but it's relatively common if you work in certain areas (the Semantic Web, for example, has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Ontology_Language)
I think the ontology of Free Software License users is a fascinating topic that sees too little light.
This post highlights the following categories:
* BSD-school -- Copyright/IP shouldn't exist, people may do what they wish with code, share it or not, but credit should be given at least... Honestly, kinda libertarian. BSD, ISC, WTFPL, and similar
* BSD-school (radical) -- Copyright law shouldn't exist, and even a requirement to give credit where due is too much. Software anarchists. WTFPL, Unlicense, etc
* Businesses (permissive) -- PaaS and other companies that wish to drink from the stream of existing code, but not worry about making changes and not releasing them. Apache-2.0, second-choice of BSD, ISC, etc
* Free Software Activists -- The GNU school, everything is about user freedom to modify any software they use. AGPL, GPLv3, etc
* Businesses (Upstarts? Free-software weaponizers?) -- They use free software to lure in idealistic hackers, while also using it as a tool to negotiate with Businesses (permissive) to make money. Dual license SSPL/GPL+something permissive,
I think that's roughly the list discussed in the post. I would like to further add a few categories to this list from my perspective:
* Free Software Activists (with outreach) -- GNU school of thought, but with a desire to do outreach; they believe in user freedom, but would rather their code be used copyleft than not used, thus settle for the LGPL. LGPL
* Open-source Advocate -- Developers who believe in open source as a means of collaboration and improvement of software, not as an ideal related to IP law. This interpretation stems largely from people working at Businesses (permissive) which use this sort of open source as a PR tool or attempt at free labour. Apache-2, BSD, etc
* Business (PR/Image) -- A company that publishes open source software to attract developers in any of the previous camps, to create PR, and/or to crowd-source free labour. Distinct from Business (permissive) because (permissive) is about taking and using software, not releasing it, but there is likely overlap. Apache-2, BSD, etc.
I'd like to hear any thoughts others might have on whether there are more ontologies, whether any of these are inaccurate, or whether any of these are poorly categorized.