I’m a very much pro free software person and I used to think that GPL is basically the only possible option when it comes to benefits for free software (and not commercial use), but I’ve recently realised this question is actually much more ambiguous.

I think there are two sides to this issue:

  • GPL forces all contributions to stay open-source which prevents commercialisation* of FOSS projects, but also causes possible interference of corporate software design philosophy and all kinds of commercial decisions, if contributions come from companies.
  • MIT-like permissive licenses, on the other hand, easily allow for making proprietary forks, which, however, separates commercial work from the rest of the project, therefore making the project more likely to stay free both of corporate influence and in general.

So it boils down to the fact, that in my opinion what makes free software free is not only the way it’s distributed but also the whole philosophy behind it: centralisation vs. decentralisation, passive consumer vs. co-developper role of the user etc. And this is where things start to be a bit controversial.

What do you think?

*UPD: wrong word. I mean close-sourcing and turning into a profitable product instead of something that fulfils your needs

  • رضا@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    20 hours ago

    I have the opposite opinion about this issue.

    MIT-like licenses allow corpos to take over a project and make it private step by step (kinda like boiling a frog), first create a “open source” fork and fund it to the max. then step by step make it not open source. after a while (could be years) there is no open source influence and most of the project is under the command of the corpo.

    the most recent one being android.

    I have come to the conclusion that people that use MIT-like licenses don’t care at all about software freedom (which is kinda obvious if you read MIT license itself).

    so I try to contribute to projects that are immune to that by using copy-left licenses ,so called viral licenses that “limit” the ability of corpos to take over a project with the intention of making private or even create a private fork of it.

    you are corporation and want to contribute to a project to make it better? cool, so it would not matter to you if the license is MIT or GPL? right??? you don’t want to do a sneaky fork and make it private, right? so you would have no issue with GPL.

    when free software devs recommend using MIT-like licenses I am reminded of the meme cartoon about sheep recommending befriending the wolf.

    It is almost like they learned nothing from software development trends of rent seeking private sector.

    the beauty of GPL-like is that I can be sure when I help it make better I am not helping a private entity later take it over and privatize it. I want to help humanity not help private sector make money with propriety software.

    when you make your license MIT-like you are not saying I am maximizing software freedom. you are saying I don’t care what happens to this software.