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.
It is concerning, yeah. I usually license my own software with MIT, but, not all of it, and I think GPL is very important for Linux.
The switch to permissive licensing is terrible for end-user software freedom given that corporations like Apple and Sony have leeched off of FreeBSD in the past to make their proprietary locked-down OSes that took over the market. Not sure what would happen if RedoxOS became usable in production, but if it turns out to function better than Linux enough to motivate corporations to shift their focus to it, open source versions for servers would probably still exist, but hardware compatibility on end-user devices would be at higher risk than before as vendors switch their support and stop open sourcing stuff. Or they keep focusing on Linux for server stuff due to the GPL license and the fact that their infrastructure is already on it.
That’s good point.
Another thing that is dangerous are CLAs or “contributor license agreements”, like Google uses. Technically, it is GPL, but Google might demand to hold all the copyright, so as the copyright holder it can change the license at a whim.
like the GPL successfully enforces
I’m not aware of the GPL being legally tested to where you can claim that; there are a lot of open questions, and it has failed to protect works from AI companies, for example.
I’m not aware of the GPL being legally tested
https://fsfe.org/activities/avm-gpl-violation/avm-gpl-violation.en.html
In context of the many failures, I don’t think this establishes anything.
GPL has certainly failed time and time again, openly in the case of FFmpeg and their clones all over Eastern Europe and elsewhere. FFmpeg made a lot of noise and resorted to “public shaming” mostly because the courts weren’t working for them. And they have a very visible product… so many GPL licensed things are lurking inside proprietary products where they’ll never be seen.
It’s like putting a license on COVID to prevent it from spreading… it just doesn’t work in the real world.
The original intention of public licenses was never to prevent code from spreading in any circumstance. Rather, that’s the “innovation” of copy-left. We just wanted a way to share our code without putting the people who used it into legal hot water. We didn’t want to control or manipulate people, using our code to extort a particular behavior out of them. We just wanted to share our code. I think copy-left makes sense in certain situations but I don’t think it should be the default option of a person wanting to contribute to culture.
We didn’t want to control or manipulate people, using our code to extort a particular behavior out of them.
The FOSS community, and even the community of developers on single large FOSS projects, is large and diverse… The royal “We” doesn’t really apply at all, even in the case of Linus and the kernel - sure, he’s a clear leader, but he’s hardly in control of the larger community and their wants.
I think the current state of open source licensing is much as it should be… MIT has its place, as does GPL, and if we’re going to pretend that intellectual property is about protecting creators, then it’s the creators who should get to choose.
In the world I live in, intellectual property is a barrier to entry that’s primarily used by organizations with a lot of power (money) to prevent others from disturbing their plans of making more money. MIT seems most appropriate for individual creators to assure that that world doesn’t come crashing into their bedroom with CDOs and lawsuits. GPL is “cute” - but I think most practitioners of GPL licensing don’t have any clue how far out of their depth they are if they should ever seek actual enforcement of their self-declared license terms. That’s not to say GPL is toothless. It gives small players a tool to amplify the trouble they can make for those who would violate their license (primarily mode of violation being by use of the code so licensed.) But, other than making minor trouble for the bigger players, thus discouraging the bigger players from entangling with them, GPL isn’t going to “make” the bigger players do much of anything other than stay away.
GPL does shape the community, it has its effects, I just get tired of hearing about the specific immediate legal language of it, because that’s far from the actual effects it has.
There was a “we” that produced the first public licenses – amateur and enthusiast software developers, who previously were simply publishing things to the “public domain”. And “we” had clear goals in doing so, which we often wrote directly into our ad hoc self-written licenses. They weren’t handed down by God, there is a mortal history, and living people here were part of it.
I agree that the GPL should be viewed as a cultural artifact, not a legal one. It’s just the spirit of shareware, but without money involved.
without money involved
Without money involved the court system is useless. The whole point of legal action around contracts is to determine what happens when the agreements of contracts have been broken.
Coreutils has little commercial value to take can create a proprietary fork of. There is little value that can be added to it to make it worthwhile. The same is for sudo - which has had a permissive licence from the start. In all that time no one has cared enough to fork it for profit.
Not saying that is true of every project. But at the same time even GPL software has issues with large companies profiting off it and not contributing back. Since unless you are distributing binaries the GPL does not force you to do anything really. See mongodb and their move to even more restrictive licences.
The GPL is not the only thing that stops companies from taking open software. Nor does it fully protect against that.
Not does everything need to be GPL. It makes sense for some projects and less sense for others. Especially libraries as that basically forces no company from using them for anything. Which is also not what you want from a library.
Let’s see how this goes then revisit the question.
Yes.
Anyone who cares about user freedoms is not choosing a permissive licence.
The problem is developers only caring about themselves and other developers.
When I talk to devs I know who like FOSS, they are always focussed on their needs as a dev when it comes to licences. The real concern was, and always should be, for the software user’s freedoms.
One side community wants total GPL take over and one side they don’t support total GPLv3 licenced Operating system like
How does permissive licensing lead to corporate takeover? Companies can do proprietary forks of permissively licensed foss projects, but they can’t automatically take over the upstream.
Permissive licensing can create what is effectively “software tivoization” (the restriction or dirty interpretation of distribution and modification rights of software by the inclusion of differently-licensed components).
The Bitwarden case is a good example of how much damage can be done to a brand with merely the perception of restrictive licensing. obviously, bitwarden has clarified the mess, but not before it was being called ‘proprietary’ by the whole oss community.
So I don’t think op is referring to direct corporate takeover, but damage caused by corporate abuse of a fork.
Most Open Source software is written by corporations. The Open Source licenses are an advantage to them.
The biggest source of GPL software is probably Red Hat (IBM). They maintain most of what people think of when they think of GNU software and they wrote many of the newer GPL projects that everybody uses (like systemd).
The trend has been towards permissive licenses for a long time. The have led to more Open Source software, not less.
Look at Clang vs GCC. Clang attracts a greater diversity of corporate contribution and generates greater Open Source diversity. Zig and Rust appeared on LLVM for a reason.
What we should be worried about is the cloud. It allows big companies to outsell the little companies writing Open Source software. Neither permissive nor copyleft licenses prevent this.
Also on that topic, very interesting read:
I like non-copyleft licenses for one reason. Imagine if ffmpeg devs were like:
so many security vulnerabilities, your free labor is bad
thanks for pointing that out, it’s not longer free
Most devs (including me) want to have some control over what they made. Permissive licenses allow rugpulling project if someone is using it while making YOU do stuff. ffmpeg is a great example. You may not like it but that’s how it is.
I’m not sure I’m following. The owners of the code can re-license anytime they want, and even dual-license or license on a case-by-case basis. Would require a contributor license agreement to be practical though, and it looks like ffmpeg may not have one.
deleted by creator
You’re taking an incredibly slanted position. There is a whole world of vibrant, viable, meaningful FOSS outside copyleft licenses. Even when one philosophically and politically prefers copyleft licenses, sometimes there are cases where the humanitarian or practical argument favours permissive licensing. But there are many who simply don’t share your interpretation of the philosophy and politics.
Removed by mod
You’re the only user catching downvotes
Check the rest of the thread 🤣
People in here don’t work in the space, and are clearly not knowledgeable about the subject. They can downvote me all they want.
I did, twice
