eliah-lakhin

Talking about this specific case. I might be wrong here, but as far as I understand if the license does not state that it is non-revocable(which MIT doesn't explicitly state), it means that it could be revoked by the copyright owner.

So, basically the owner can just revoke MIT license, and then replace it with something different.

> that they've given away certain rights via their license agreement

The license agreement normally should outline a procedure of revocation and termination of the license for applicants. And it should be a part of the agreement. This is pretty much normal practice in many proprietary licenses. And, in my opinion, is certainly morally fair considering that software distributed free of charge by the author.

Why not just simply write a new type of License that would explicitly ban organizations and entities from using the work in any forms, but, in contrast, would grant large possibilities to use the project for individuals for free?

Such approach is no doubt contradicts FOSS principals, but I don't see how else we can defend ourselves from the business exploitation these days.

In addition, I would also explicitly state in such License, that the author preserving exclusive rights of the work. To keep an IP in hands of it's creator. When one keeps exclusive ownership rights, it could be clearer how to defend them in the legal field, rather than something developed by uncertain set of contributors.

GPL and other FOSS licenses were initial designed for crowd development. But let's face the truth, a lot of nice software projects are practically developing by individuals exclusively. Their authors don't really require crowd contribution even for maintenance. Yet, society(by "society" I mean independent programmers and individual users, not corporations) can still benefit from using of their work.

It's a common practice in many other fields of creativity. We rarely see books, visual art creations, scientific articles, etc made by crowd. And there are many examples of outstanding works made this way. And all that works are quit well defended by just normal Copyright laws. So, why shouldn't we, the programmers, avoid such obvious and well defined practice?

Of course, FOSS could still be applied for large infrastructure things. Such as Linux maybe, or Wikimedia. Crowd development is beneficial in many aspects, but individual creativity is not crowd development. So, my point is that individual authors just shouldn't adopt FOSS licenses by default.

Hm... What can you say about Textadept? For the first glance it seems like a good alternative with lesser entry barriers. At least comparing with vanilla vim and emacs.

True! :) In fact I already have a good code editor(not terminal-based) that I used to use. I just want to find something that may improve my experience.

> Maybe you can tell us why you need it to work in a console. Do you only want to edit files over there?

Well, I'm using Windows on my primary machine when I'm at home, and Mac when I'm outside. It's not a secret that Windows is bad as a development environment. Even it's file system has issues in mapping to unix fs. So I prefer to keep all my development things on remote Linux machine, and work through the SSH. That's why I'm interesting in terminal-based editors.

I prefer to follow design principals and product's phylosophy that laid down to the product by it's developers. If I find the principles inappropriate for me I prefer to find something different, than modding the product using any sort of plugins. Including keyboard's extension keys that I would call "plugin" too in this context.

I didn't say that "vim" is not modern. And I know that many people find it useful. Moreover I use it myself quite often since it is my default console editor. But I found it not so useful for myself as a primary editor. There are reasons that I prefered to skip in the root message to avoid starting of flame war.

But I'm wondering why people keep teach me and advice me how to use vim and emacs? I didn't ask any advices on these two editors. I just asked about alternatives. Maybe not so famous alternatives, but anyway.

I respect your feelings on your favourite editor. And I don't claim you to change your mind about it, nor I want to change mine. I just asked about alternative products.