Oh right, I get now, thanks.
But it's still pretty bs, the guy earned a ton of money before those other guys created a derivative work off his one and could have used the fame and the money acquired to either create a company of coders to improve his licence (which those other guys did) or make a ton of money and invest it in the stock market and live off the profits.
It's not about "improving license" though, because you can change license trivially. Licenses are stupidly easy to change. I could go to one of my hobby repositories and change the license now for fun. It's about people who use the BSD and get upset about people doing what the license says. Permissive licenses are fine, but you have to know exactly what you're getting into. People frequently use something like BSD and then get upset when people don't treat it as the GPL. More importantly, plenty of people use the BSD assuming that their stuff will only be used by BSD projects and corporations behind closed doors, and that their code won't ever be forked by somebody who prefers the GPL or something.
The important thing is that the story is a fictional story, but it is criticizing something that actually happens, which is people who use a license and then are upset that people are abiding by the license in ways that they don't like, when they could have just used a license that would have enforced people using it only in a way they do like (LGPL would have possibly been better). Tons of people choose BSD or MIT because they're trendy without considering that they don't actually offer what they want. I use multiple different licenses for personal projects on a regular basis because I care about how they're going to be used. It's not a decision that should be taken lightly.
Yeah I meant something similar, what I wanted to say is that even with a permissive licence, he still could have made a lot of money off his project - enough to be able to retire if he would have been smart about it.
But yes, as you said, people use the wrong licence then wonder why people use the code in a way that is unprofitable to the original programmer but totally allowable and legal.
Stupid can't be cured.
because anarchists are primarily anti (centralized) power and copylefts are a giant wrench in the gears of mega corps.
also contracts can be enforced decentrally, without government. check vid related for some ideas.
youtube.com
unless you could somehow control who gets to be part of the social space..
whats wrong with that?
Something like a GPL for books is the GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License). It does allow modification.
...
theres more to statist marriage
like tax benefits and forcing priests to commence with anti-discrimation laws
truly libertarin would be to completly stay out ofpeoples affairs; leave it up to the religious institutions and no tax cuts for anyone because there is no tax. and the official registry buerocracy is irrellevant too.
might I kindly suggest using identitarian instead of nationalist