>> the users won't enjoy software freedom with that result
> That's the part I was talking about.
> So I don't know why you started your post with "No."
You are mixing two different users. FreeBSD user A enjoys software freedom. macOS user B doesn't. A and B are different people. And notably, the release of macOS didn't make FreeBSD disappear, so A still fully enjoys their freedom even though B doesn't with the downstream software (but could with the upstream software as well).
If you are mixing user A and user B, your mental model of this stuff is not clear and reasoning with it is going to be difficult and frustrating. And it makes you reach incorrect conclusions such as "permissive licenses are less free for the users than copyleft licenses".
> So we're agreeing that being fine with a restriction doesn't necessarily mean anyone has "lost the direction" of free software?
Laws are supposed to protect individual and collective freedom and interests. They do this by putting limits on what you could do that would prevent others from enjoying their own freedom.
(of course, I know we are far from this ideal; also laws aren't perfect and issues should be fought against - it's actually, in practice, a constant fight because different (groups of) people have different interests and priorities - but that's another concern and mixing concerns makes things hard to reason about)
License restrictions that compromise on software freedom are simply not comparable to whatever it takes to make a society work. They are not making a tradeoff for your own good as a user. They are benefiting the software provider at the cost of the user's freedom.
I'm not mixing up users A and B. Let me try phrasing it better. MIT does not give software freedom to all users of the code. A huge number of users get excluded in practice, far more users than this clause in the liquibase license.
> Laws are supposed to protect individual and collective freedom and interests. They do this by putting limits on what you could do that would prevent others from enjoying their own freedom.
I'm not sure where you're going with this when my example was NDAs. NDAs aren't there to protect freedoms, they only remove freedom. Laws enforce them, but in the same way that laws enforce license restrictions.
> 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 :-)
> That's the part I was talking about.
> So I don't know why you started your post with "No."
You are mixing two different users. FreeBSD user A enjoys software freedom. macOS user B doesn't. A and B are different people. And notably, the release of macOS didn't make FreeBSD disappear, so A still fully enjoys their freedom even though B doesn't with the downstream software (but could with the upstream software as well).
If you are mixing user A and user B, your mental model of this stuff is not clear and reasoning with it is going to be difficult and frustrating. And it makes you reach incorrect conclusions such as "permissive licenses are less free for the users than copyleft licenses".
> So we're agreeing that being fine with a restriction doesn't necessarily mean anyone has "lost the direction" of free software?
Laws are supposed to protect individual and collective freedom and interests. They do this by putting limits on what you could do that would prevent others from enjoying their own freedom.
(of course, I know we are far from this ideal; also laws aren't perfect and issues should be fought against - it's actually, in practice, a constant fight because different (groups of) people have different interests and priorities - but that's another concern and mixing concerns makes things hard to reason about)
License restrictions that compromise on software freedom are simply not comparable to whatever it takes to make a society work. They are not making a tradeoff for your own good as a user. They are benefiting the software provider at the cost of the user's freedom.