What's with the move to MIT over AGPL for utilities?
-
Any linking against GPL software requires you to also release your source code under GPL. AGPL allows you to link to it dynamically without relicensing, but as explained, there are platforms where dynamic linking isn't an option, which means these libraries can't be used if one doesn't want to provide AGPL licensed source code of their own product.
-
Yes, sorry
-
I would understand if Canonical want a new cow to milk, but why are developers even agreeing to this? Are they out of their minds?? Do they actually want companies to steal their code? Or is this some reverse-uno move I don't see yet? I cannot fathom any FOSS project not using the AGPL anymore. It's like they're painting their faces with "here, take my stuff and don't contribute anything back, that's totally fine"
Its simple: its to exploit it in a corporate setting. I license under MIT because a lot of my things are of small convenience, but never without debating the ethics of why I am licensing it.
-
How does a corporation using it obstruct independent developers from using it under the same license? I don't see a compelling case for them being mutually exclusive
Because most corporations do not contribute their changes back if it's MIT/BSD licensed
-
Yeah, but you and I aren't really representative of all software people. Most of them just want to grill.
I understand. I can't argue against wanting to earn money and be told to do something. I just wish that those that have a choice would take the extra minute to use GPL
-
Its simple: its to exploit it in a corporate setting. I license under MIT because a lot of my things are of small convenience, but never without debating the ethics of why I am licensing it.
I understand that if your boss tells you to write MIT/Proprietary code, you do so. I just wish that the ones who had a choice would use GPL
-
I would understand if Canonical want a new cow to milk, but why are developers even agreeing to this? Are they out of their minds?? Do they actually want companies to steal their code? Or is this some reverse-uno move I don't see yet? I cannot fathom any FOSS project not using the AGPL anymore. It's like they're painting their faces with "here, take my stuff and don't contribute anything back, that's totally fine"
Bruh instead of all this speculation, you guys could have just looked it up.
https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/discussions/4358#discussioncomment-8027681
-
Its simple: its to exploit it in a corporate setting. I license under MIT because a lot of my things are of small convenience, but never without debating the ethics of why I am licensing it.
The author explicitly states that this is not the reason.
https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/discussions/4358#discussioncomment-8027681
-
I would understand if Canonical want a new cow to milk, but why are developers even agreeing to this? Are they out of their minds?? Do they actually want companies to steal their code? Or is this some reverse-uno move I don't see yet? I cannot fathom any FOSS project not using the AGPL anymore. It's like they're painting their faces with "here, take my stuff and don't contribute anything back, that's totally fine"
I like BSDs more than GPL just personal choice
-
If you're developing software for a platform that doesn't allow users to replace dynamic libraries (game consoles, iOS, many embedded/commercial systems), you won't be able to legally use any GPL or AGPL libraries.
While I strongly agree with the motives behind copyleft licenses, I personally never use them because I've had many occasions where I was unable to use any available library for a specific task because they all had incompatible licenses.
I release code for the sole purpose of allowing others to use it. I don't want to impose any restrictions on my fellow developers, because I understand the struggle it can bring.
Even for desktop programs, I prefer MIT or BSD because it allows others to take snippets of code without needing to re-license anything.
Yes I understand that means anyone can make a closed-source fork, but that doesn't bother me.
If I wanted to sell it I might care, but I would have used a different license for a commercial project anyway.If the only problem is that you can't use dynamic linking (or otherwise make relinking possible), you still can legally use LGPL libraries. As long as you license the project using that library as GPL or LGPL as well.
However, those platforms tend to be a problem for GPL in other ways. GPL has long been known to conflict with Apple's App Store and similar services, for example, because the GPL forbids imposing extra limits that restrict user freedom and those stores have a terms of service that does exactly that.
-
Only if they make changes/improvements to the code. If it's a library that is used then no, AFAIK you don't need to.
If you link to GPL library, your software has to be GPL. You are confusing it with LGPL. Though you can bypass this by making the library its own standalone app. Like let's say FFmpeg which is just a frontend for libAV libraries. (ignore that these libraries are actually LGPL, so you can link to them.)
-
Because most corporations do not contribute their changes back if it's MIT/BSD licensed
Oh so you're saying the companies are not altruistic? I'd agree. I thought you were saying that the people making the FOSS were not being altruistic.
-
I would understand if Canonical want a new cow to milk, but why are developers even agreeing to this? Are they out of their minds?? Do they actually want companies to steal their code? Or is this some reverse-uno move I don't see yet? I cannot fathom any FOSS project not using the AGPL anymore. It's like they're painting their faces with "here, take my stuff and don't contribute anything back, that's totally fine"
Does anyone use MPL anymore? Is it a decent middle ground or the worst of both worlds?
-
Some people might say that so many companies contributing free and open code to clang/llvm instead of GCC is real world evidence against the idea that companies only contribute to free software because the GPL makes them. Or even that permissive licenses can lead to greater corporate sharing than the GPL does. Why does Apple openly contribute to LLVM but refuse to ship GPL3 anything?
According to the web, Red Hat is the most evil company in Open Source. They are also the biggest contributor to Xorg and Wayland. Those are MIT licensed. Why don’t they just keep all their code to themselves? The license would allow it after all. Why did they license systemd as GPL? They did not have to.
The memory allocator used in my distro was written by Microsoft. I have not paid them a dime and I enjoy “the 4 freedoms” with the code they gave me because it is completely free software. Guess what license it uses?
you (and everyone else who thinks the gpl is just about contributing back) are missing the point. the main goal of the gpl licenses (including the lgpl) is user freedom. they ensure that you can modify any piece of gpl software anywhere it's used. if you use a propietary system that includes gpl/lgpl software, you should be able to modify the gpl parts to do whatever you want. say for some reason you're using a system that includes ai slop in its shell, but the shell is a gpl application. you could just grab a fork of the shell stripped of ai functionality and replace the system's shell with it
that's impossible with permissive licenses. with permissive licenses, you could be using a system with 80% open source software and be completely unaware of it, unable to change it as you see fit. from the pov of the user, "permissive" licenses are restrictive; copyleft licenses are freer bc its restrictions are there to forbid the developer from locking down free software for the users
of course companies are going to prefer permissive licenses. they want to take advantage of using free labor enable by open source while keeping the freedom to lock down said open source software in their systems. so, when given the option, they will always prefer to contribute back to software with permissive licenses
and that's the whole problem here: you giving them the option by creating a copyfree alternative to an important piece of copyleft software. do you think companies would ever comtribute to linux if any bsd was a viable alternative to linux? but the kernel community at large decided to stick to the gpl, so the companies have no choice
it's true that copyfree software isn't any less free than copyleft software, and i'm not even completely against using permissive licenses. my issue is creating an mit alternative to gpl software
-
Oh so you're saying the companies are not altruistic? I'd agree. I thought you were saying that the people making the FOSS were not being altruistic.
The very act of writing FOSS code is altruistic. Indeed, I'm looking at the big corporations when I point and say "thief!".
Some companies do work that I like though. Mullvad is a prime example. Recently I've been looking at Nym and I like their ideas and work. I really liked that the big giants like Google and IBM collaborated for k8s. I believe Uber has done something wonderful for the FOSS community too but I don't remember what it is. The fact is that they can if they try
-
I would understand if Canonical want a new cow to milk, but why are developers even agreeing to this? Are they out of their minds?? Do they actually want companies to steal their code? Or is this some reverse-uno move I don't see yet? I cannot fathom any FOSS project not using the AGPL anymore. It's like they're painting their faces with "here, take my stuff and don't contribute anything back, that's totally fine"
For me, my personal projects are generally MIT licensed. I generally don't like "restrictions" on licenses, even if those "restrictions" are requiring others to provide their source and I want as many people to use my projects as possible, I don't like to restrict who uses it, even if it's just small/home businesses who don't want to publish the updated source code.
With that said, though, I have been starting to come around more to AGPL these days.
-
For me, my personal projects are generally MIT licensed. I generally don't like "restrictions" on licenses, even if those "restrictions" are requiring others to provide their source and I want as many people to use my projects as possible, I don't like to restrict who uses it, even if it's just small/home businesses who don't want to publish the updated source code.
With that said, though, I have been starting to come around more to AGPL these days.
I wohld agree, because you really downplay the scenario.
As soon as you accidentallt create something, which everyone starts to use or has an use case, then some Cooperation will copy that thing, make it better and make your community dissappear because there is the newer tool which you cant change the code of anymore and need to use a monthly subscription or something to even use.
So, it somehow seems like you're gaslighting yourself by downplaying the use case.
Mostly it will be small buisnesses and hobbyists, which I would like to code for them too. Especially when they are nice and friendly. But as soon as Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon gets hands on it and sees a potential to squeeze money through it by destroying it, then they will surely do it.
-
I like BSDs more than GPL just personal choice
Squeek, squack. Your opinion is whack
-
Note that AGPL can take changes from MIT but MIT can't take changes that are purely AGPL without following the AGPL.
So, as far as I can understand, any improvements done to the AGPL version cannot be carried over to the MIT version (without very painful and careful re-implementation / re-engineering). That alone would be a big advantage to the hypothetical AGPL fork.
Thats the point of GPl licenses. You cant close source it.
MIT is a free and also heavy closed source friendly. GPL fixes the greed
-
I wohld agree, because you really downplay the scenario.
As soon as you accidentallt create something, which everyone starts to use or has an use case, then some Cooperation will copy that thing, make it better and make your community dissappear because there is the newer tool which you cant change the code of anymore and need to use a monthly subscription or something to even use.
So, it somehow seems like you're gaslighting yourself by downplaying the use case.
Mostly it will be small buisnesses and hobbyists, which I would like to code for them too. Especially when they are nice and friendly. But as soon as Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon gets hands on it and sees a potential to squeeze money through it by destroying it, then they will surely do it.
I edited my comment to better and more fully reflect my thoughts. It's hard to properly express myself when I've been as sick as I have been with bronchitis and possible pneumonia for the past 4 weeks.
Hopefully my comment now better reflects my thoughts.
