I agree. And would add that "capitalism" is a slippery word. There is "crony capitalism" that protects income based on hoarding secrets and lock-ins and raising costs to entry in the market place and patent abuse and government corporate bailout when the preceding fail. And then there is "free enterprise", where there is freedom to enter, innovate, succeed, and fail without bailouts, (although personal bailouts in the form of a minimal welfare safety net could be ok, but there has to be pain from failure or learning is short-circuited - the net has to be uncomfortable or even hurt).
Having followed RMS from the early days of League for Programming Freedom, the only "capitalism" he is against is the crony kind.
The input=output convention is the easiest for small contributors like me to understand (and newbies). Corporations needs written authorization to avoid legal trouble. Hence, the "minimalist" approach seems to serve both needs optimally. The "maximalist" agreements I would call "scary", and I've avoided them after my first encounter. Kudos to Mr. Fontana for the clear and appropriate terminology for these approaches.
Authored Comments
I agree. And would add that "capitalism" is a slippery word. There is "crony capitalism" that protects income based on hoarding secrets and lock-ins and raising costs to entry in the market place and patent abuse and government corporate bailout when the preceding fail. And then there is "free enterprise", where there is freedom to enter, innovate, succeed, and fail without bailouts, (although personal bailouts in the form of a minimal welfare safety net could be ok, but there has to be pain from failure or learning is short-circuited - the net has to be uncomfortable or even hurt).
Having followed RMS from the early days of League for Programming Freedom, the only "capitalism" he is against is the crony kind.
The input=output convention is the easiest for small contributors like me to understand (and newbies). Corporations needs written authorization to avoid legal trouble. Hence, the "minimalist" approach seems to serve both needs optimally. The "maximalist" agreements I would call "scary", and I've avoided them after my first encounter. Kudos to Mr. Fontana for the clear and appropriate terminology for these approaches.