@datarama Right. That's is also a good point. Thank you for reminding me this.
@davidrevoy @datarama seriously, ignore the linux foundation, it's everything bad about corporate foss. Big corps lording over and coopting community work, when they're not too busy self dealing.
Anyone thinking BSD is some green pasture of freedom, good effing luck. The hardware support alone would turn my daily driver into a paperweight. I love that BSD exists, but it need a community that's a bit more than server racks and zfs pools. Linux is only just growing out of that mindset.
@AlexanderMars @datarama Yes, I think the advice of ignoring the Linux Foundation is one I'll keep in mind. Thank you!
@davidrevoy @datarama sorta related, I think more devs need to release more code as CC-NC, with a notice that commercial licences are available.
@AlexanderMars @davidrevoy @datarama Or AGPLv3 or later, to scare off corpos. Then offer a separate commercial license.
@AlexanderMars
> more devs need to release more code as CC-NC
CC strongly discourage using their licenses for code. Ways to make Free Code less vulnerable to corporate freeriding have been discussed, at length, for decades. But Source Available licenses create more problems than they solve.
@elgregor
> AGPLv3 or later, to scare off corpos. Then offer a separate commercial license
This is the way. Make them give credit to original devs, and publish their modifications.
@davidrevoy @datarama