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 are 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 amount if software that they write. In my view, better communities develop around permissive licenses. Just like, my opinion man.
Third, the GPL shrinks ecosystems and restricts my ability to build on and share code. I cannot combine ZFS and Linux. I could if either one (or both) was permissively licensed. That is a loss of freedom for ME.
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.
With permissive license, corporations are allowed publish a modified version of the software while restricting their code modifications from release to the community. That is not collaboration. Permissive license benefits corporations more than the community.
Which is why they choose permissive licenses for their projects. They receive code contributions from the community and then suddenly: rugpull! Starting from next version the software will be proprietary. The community contributors are of course having pikachu face when they realize the corporations are legally permitted to take the fruit of their labor from them because their contributions are under permissive license.
My time and effort has been lost. The fruit of my labor has been lost. When i contribute or make to a Free Software project, i wish for it to benefit the community the most. If corporations want to release a software based on modified version of my code, I want a guarantee that the modified code to be available to the community too. The corporations benefit from my labor, but the community receives the company’s modified code too. That’s collaboration. Copyleft licenses such as GPL guarantees this.
Of course, such guarantee is considered “restriction” if one never intends the community to be the primary beneficiary in the first place.
With permissive license your free labor benefits corporations the most. Corporations that take things and enshittify them and do not give back to the community, all the while they get rich. Your choice your prerogative.
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.
The GPL does nothing for MY freedom.
Freedom to have sex with somebody against their will is not a “freedom” for me. It is subjugation for them. Something does not become a “freedom” simply because it benefits me.
The right to eat crops grown by others is not a “freedom”. It is an entitlement.
That said, there is nothing immoral, unethical, or wrong about me growing crops and providing seeds to others on the condition that they share the resulting crops with me or even with everyone. This is a contract and hopefully a mutually beneficial one. All good as long as the terms are known up-front and all parties consent.
In my view, that last paragraph is the GPL. There is nothing wrong with it at all. However, it does not make either party to the contact “more free”. In fact, you a bit less free in the future when you agree to a contact, because you have to abide by its terms. But at least you got there freely.
Permissive licenses are not a contract. They are a gift. They make no demands. They take away no freedom at all.
Both are valid choices. I have no quarrel with somebody choosing the GPL.
I do not agree that permissive licenses are less free or that the GPL is moreso.
If it was truly about MY freedom, choosing a permissive license would not upset you.