Imagine the following situation: your project is MIT licensed. Someone takes the whole project and white-labels it (changes the name), then sells it commercially without providing the source code or sharing any of the sales revenue with you. They include "Copyright <your name>" and a copy of the MIT license in the "about" page of the software.
Maybe it’s just time to say “fuck it” and #GPL all the things?
The #OpenSource movement was a response to corporate skittishness around using #FOSS, and it focused on very permissive licenses to make corporations feel more comfortable using it. Maybe that turned out to be the wrong approach. Maybe the #OSI helped create the problem.
If the OSI helped create it, #GitHub encouraged and exacerbated it.
If you see the AGPL licenses on my free and open source work and you think “damn you, I can’t use this to enrich myself or my corporation without sharing back what I’ve built on top of what you’ve freely shared and thus contribute to cultivating a healthy commons where others might enjoy the same benefits from my work that I want to obtain from yours” (a) you really have long-winded thoughts and (b) well, you already see the flaw in your reasoning.
(Remember this whenever anyone complains about ‘the viral nature of GPL’ or sings praises for (neo)’liberal’ licenses like MIT and BSD that enable corporations to partake of the free labour of others and enclose the commons.)
@happyborg if you wish, publish your code on whichever license you want.
Stop shaming and blaming developers that donate their time and code to everybody.
Not everybody wants a viral license.
Your toot is harmful. Shaming and blaming others will have an effect of them not giving a damn about open source. #GPL is not the answer to everything. There are dozens of #opensource licenses to choose from. Why do you try to polarize the community?
@nicemicro there’s something more: on corporate-owned servers (⇒ "software as a service") the #GPL (v2 or later) does not guarantee effective copyleft.
To have copyleft with server-side software you need to use the #AGPL (v3 or later).
@BrodieOnLinux in my opinion, we should blame it on the BSD / MIT style licenses that require nothing from downstream.
Corporations have access to thousands of libraries at no cost and no restrictions... People in general don't appreciate things that come easy, and tend to be irresponsible towards those things.
Does the added unpaid maintenance burden worth it now, that due to choosing MIT vs GPL, hundreds of proprietary junk use your code? I don't think so.
In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing
Does the #GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt#GNUGPLFAQ
In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing
In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing
In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing
[Next] #Orange condamnée à 860 000 euros pour contrefaçon et violation de la licence libre GNU #GPL https://next.ink/brief_article/orange-condamnee-a-860-000-euros-pour-contrefacon-et-violation-de-la-licence-libre-gnu-gpl
Après plus de douze ans de procédure, rapporte l’association April, Orange vient d’être
condamnée pour contrefaçon. Elle a violé les termes de la licence #GNU GPL v2, et donc le droit
d’auteur d’Entr’ouvert, société coopérative autrice de la bibliothèque libre de gestion
d’identité LASSO (Liberty Alliance Single Sign On).
In recent years (since 2018) there were a number of court cases in China related to the #GPL and other copyleft licenses. For a (chinese) list/summary, see https://www.openatom.org/law/database - the only sad part is that all of them about damages claims between companies; no community-oriented enforcement.
Use strong copyleft licenses for your software, please. When you use permissive licenses like MIT or BSD (2 or 3 clause), you're essentially giving up the premise that free software should remain free.
The fact that silicon valley tech companies avoid using software with strong copyleft licensing is an argument for, not against them.
In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing
⚠️ CSG is failing to honor its GPL obligations, say critics - The Register
「 Cloud Software Group – the post-merger offspring of Citrix and Tibco – has decided to withdraw the community edition of its JasperReports Server. Now all you can get is the commercial edition, with a 30-day free trial 」
In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing
Does the #GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt#GNUGPLFAQ