I ask this because I think of the recent switch of Ubuntu to the Rust recode of the GNU core utils, which use an MIT license. There are many Rust recodes of GPL software that re-license it as a pushover MIT or Apache licenses. I worry these relicensing efforts this will significantly harm the FOSS ecosystem. Is this reason to start worrying or is it not that bad?
IMO, if the FOSS world makes something public, with extensive liberties, then the only thing that should be asked in return is that people preserve these liberties, like the GPL successfully enforces. These pushover licenses preserve nothing.
Permissive license offer greater freedom to users of the code that already exists. The only benefit of copyleft is that it lets you demand future code that you did not write and that the authors do not want to Open Source. It is about restricting their freedom, not enhancing yours.
Permissive licenses provide all of the “4 freedoms” that the Free Software Foundation talks about. You cannot really talk about the differences between cooyleft and permissive as a “freedom” because they are not.
The name “permissive” kind of gives it away that permissive licenses offer more freedoms about what you can do with the code you were given.
Permissive license means that whoever (say a corporation) modifies some code and release a software from it, they are not obligated to release the modified code under the same license. Which means they can use Open Source software to make proprietary software, make money off it, and the community receives nothing back for their labor.
GPL forbids this. With GPL anyone can still modifes the code and release a software from it. But it obligates that the modified code must be released as GPL too. So GPL guarantees that the community benefits.
The act of choosing a license political one. Are you willing to provide unpaid labor for corporations? Or do you want your code to benefit communities?
When I release code as Open Source, I am providing unpaid labour to everyone. My work is a public good. Like science.
I welcome collaboration from everyone (including corporations). That is the spirit of Open Source.
I do not demand it. That is the nature of freedom.
Agreed
The community has the source code that has been released as Open Source. That is what results from their labour. They can continue to collaborate and improve it. What they have “for their labor” is totally unmodified. Nothing has been lost. Possibly, nothing has been gained. This is not unique to corporations. The vast majority of the users of the code will contribute back nothing.
As it turns out, corporations as a major (majority) source of Open Source software and so it is their labor that we all benefit from. This is true for both permissive and copyleft licenses. And, true to form, few of us give anything back.
Agreed.
We disagree big picture.
First, I see a world with greater freedom as a benefit on its own.
Second, I think the GPL discourages corporate contribution. Corporations write most Open Source software. The GPL does not prevent natural monopolies in Open Source. Red Hat has enormous influence over Linux as a platform and all of free software as a whole. The GPL does not stop this and may in fact contribute. There is a reason it is their preferred license for the considerable about if software that they write. In my view, better communities develop around permissive licenses. Just like, my opinion man.
Totally agree.
I also think that the number one way that corporations profit from code without giving back is to sell it as a service. And the GPL does not help with this at all.
Developers should choose a different license if they don’t want to free their code or go work on a project that’s inline with their values then. Poor them, I could care less. The GPL is made for YOUR freedom. Anything that allows a developer to not release their code because they don’t want to, well, that software becomes proprietary, which invades your freedom. Of course the GPL “restricts” those types of developers freedom to do whatever they want, how else would the software stay free? Don’t really understand what your arguement is here.