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 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

Are you willing to provide unpaid labor for corporations?

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.

they are not obligated to release the modified code under the same license

Agreed

the community receives nothing back for their labor.

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.

[the GPL] obligates that the modified code must be released as GPL

Agreed.

So GPL guarantees that the community benefits.

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.

The act of choosing a license political one

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I welcome collaboration from everyone (including corporations).

    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.

    corporations are a major (majority) source of Open Source

    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.

    Nothing have been lost.

    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.

    When I release code as Open Source, I am providing unpaid labour to everyone.

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (1 child)

    We disagree and you have not addressed my points. So let me stress them.

    corporations are allowed publish a modified version of the software while restricting their code modifications from release to the community.

    Again, totally agree. Under a permissive license , they do not have to share their work if they do not want to.

    Permissive license benefits corporations more than the community.

    How? We both have access to the exact same code. We can license our modifications as we wish including GPL or proprietary. They can do the same. We mutually benefit when we choose the original license.

    As I have pointed out elsewhere, permissive licenses tend to attract more corporate contribution (and collaboration between corporations). That benefits me a lot.

    Google probably has an “extended” version of Clang internally. That is ok with me. I enjoy the substantial code that they do share with me. Same with Microsoft and Apple that collaborate in the same project. I enjoy innovations like Rust and Zig that get built on top. I enjoy FreeBSD that uses it and my main distro Chimera Linux that uses it as well.

    I seem to benefit quite a lot.

    pikachu face when they realize the corporations are legally permitted to take the fruit of their labor from them

    Hard to know how to respond here. Corporations can use you code under any Open Source license, including copyleft (GPL). They do not get one line extra from you because it is permissively licensed.

    I guess I will say “pikachu face” when corporations realize that I can take their permissive code and use it for free for any purpose or even compete directly against them! And I can combine their code with any code I want including proprietary and GPL! And I I think preventing this kind of thing is the main reason Red Hat likes the GPL (you know, the biggest Open Source corporation).

    My time and effort has been lost. The fruit of my labor has been lost.

    How? Real question. How is that statement accurate?

    You put time and effort into advancing an Open Source project. All of that code is still there. It can be modified, studied, enhanced, and shared. What code is available to you and what you can do with it is entirely unchanged when a corporation adds proprietary code on top of it. You have not gained their code, true. But you have not lost yours. And you can keep anything they gave you previously (or in the future). Nothing has been lost.

    When i contribute or make to a Free Software project, i wish for it to benefit the community

    And it does. All “4 freedoms” for example. Permissive or copyleft the same.

    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.

    Ah. Ok. Ya, permissive licenses don’t do that. It sounds like you will prefer copyleft licenses if this is something you want. Fine of course. But it has nothing to do with your other points. As I said, I fully support the idea of copyleft licenses. You should be free to license your work as you wish.

    Do what you want. That is not what everybody wants though. I hope you can respect that.

    Corporations that take things and enshittify them

    Well, if that is what they are going to do, thank God they did not contribute the enshitification to the Open Source repos. We can go on using the Open Source version because it is better and we like the freedom. Sounds like a point in favour of permissive licenses to me.

    all the while they get rich

    How does this happen unless their version is better? And how is it better unless it is their changes that made it better?

    It sounds like what we are really upset about is companies making better software than us and not letting us use it. That sounds like the exact opposite of what you are trying to say happens.

    But again, nobody can take the Open Source away. It is still there untarnished. It may not be enhanced by their efforts but it is not harmed either.

    What you are saying is, if they extend the Open Source software, you do not want the Open Source version anymore. You only want theirs. Because only when you use theirs do you lose any freedom. That is true collectively for “the community”.

    Your choice your prerogative.

    Finally. We agree.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    I am making an argument that copyleft licenses such as GPL are better than permissive ones because of the extra guarantees, primarily to the benefit to communities instead of corporations.

    You on the other hand are making a false equivalence.

    This is what i wrote:

    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.

    This is what you wrote:

    What you are saying is, if they extend the Open Source software, you do not want the Open Source version anymore. You only want theirs.

    The false equivalence is that because i desire communities to be the primary beneficiary of my code and its modifications, then i must also "... you do not want the Open Source version anymore. You only want theirs."

    These are not equivalent. You have begun using a logical fallacy. More elaboration of my arguments will be fruitless. Good bye.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Don't whip out "logical fallacy" if you cannot follow basic logic.

    If you want to talk about false equivalence, it is that you are equating "corporations not giving you something" with "corporations taking something from you". These are NOT the same thing.

    The code that the community has access to and the benefits that the code offers the community stand alone. If you write code and contribute it to an Open Source project then the "community" around that project is the primary beneficiary. No other facts are required to support this statement. It is self-evident.

    You seem to be suggesting that "your work" and "the benefit" disappear for the community when a corporation writes code that they do not give you. If you did not know that the company did this, would all "the benefit" still disappear? What is the mechanism for that? Is there a disturbance in the force that you are sensitive to that I have not experienced?

    The only "benefit" that has been "lost" is the benefit that the corporation added under a non-free license. And it has not been "lost". It was just not contributed.

    I totally get that you do not want companies to benefit from your work and that you want to force contribution from them. That is super fine with me. I get that you think the GPL helps further your goals. Great. Use the GPL. But why do you have to make factually incorrect arguments about permissive licenses in the process? Why not just promote what you think is unique and good about the GPL?

    People fall for this shit. I have spoken to so many people that think "they took it proprietary" somehow means the old Open Source code ceases to exist or was somehow taken away. And they think this because of comments like yours. But all the code is still there. It is still as available and useful as it was before. You can still do everything and anything with it that you wanted to do previously. It is still "free".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent