> Okay, I would agree more with this phrasing. That's the issue I have with permissive licenses.
So do you also see what I meant about both permissive and copyleft licenses giving up some freedoms? You can't have it all.
A restraint on running a particular type of business isn't great for software freedom, but if it's narrow and temporary I don't think it ruins the entire license. The gap in freedom is avoidable but also it's much smaller than the gaps you can't avoid.
For ongoing freedom, If I was choosing between plain MIT and a GPL clone that bans competiting companies but reverts to pure GPL after a couple years, I would pick the latter.
> So do you also see what I meant about both permissive and copyleft licenses giving up some freedoms? You can't have it all.
Not a fan of the framing but I get your point (of view).
> For ongoing freedom, If I was choosing between plain MIT and a GPL clone that bans competiting companies but reverts to pure GPL after a couple years, I would pick the latter.
Reasonable. I would find the 2 years delay unbearable and pick MIT, but I wouldn't enjoy doing so. It's fortunate I don't have to pick :-)
Okay, I would agree more with this phrasing. That's the issue I have with permissive licenses.
> NDAs aren't there to protect freedoms, they only remove freedom.
To be fair, I'm also not a fan of most NDAs indeed.
> Laws enforce them, but in the same way that laws enforce license restrictions.
Yep, I agree with this.