249
Is the FOSS world in danger of a corporate takeover, thanks to pushover licenses? (lemmy.world)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
113 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •