What's with the move to MIT over AGPL for utilities?
-
My rule-of-thumb is: is the licence going to make things better for users? In other words, I try to predict whether a company would just not use my AGPL-licensed code, or would potentially contribute back. If they wouldn't, I don't really care and rather my code at least gets used to build something presumably useful.
The point is that even if companies have the personnel to contribute back, most of them don't. It simply isn't in their interest. If a project is good enough, AGPL will mean that no monopoly will form around that project and open standards will be maintained. AGPL is simply a bastion against closed-source software working against the best interests of consumers
-
GPL would not require that. It would only require publication of the source. There is no requirement to give back or even make your changes compatible with upstream.
Yes, publication of the source is enough. However, you are correct and I should have worded it better. In practice, publishing the source allows the developers of the software to make improvements unhindered by licensing and other IP-based hindrances which are otherwise present in closed-source software
-
Ah, OK. No, of course not. I was thinking more about hobby developers.
If it is solely for investors, then I understand. However I'm saddened to think that altrium in software has gone to the gutter
-
here, take my stuff and don’t contribute anything back, that’s totally fine
I mean, yeah? They are probably fine with that and think that software should be distributed without restrictions. You may not agree with it, but it's their choice. Not really stealing if they give it away willingly.
I cannot fathom any FOSS project not using the AGPL anymore.
I mean, most of them that want to use a GPL-like license use the GPL or LGPL rather than the AGPL.
why are developers even agreeing to this?
Are they? Last I checked this wasn't as much of a plan as much of it was just a developer thinking out loud. And even if it was a real plan, developers should continue doing what they should be doing anyway: Write their scripts without any GNU/uutils/whatever-microsoft-calls-their-evil-uutils-fork extensions. Then their scripts could run across all platforms, including GNU, uutils, FreeBSD and BusyBox.
At any rate, if Microsoft really wanted to make their own coreutils fork (if they haven't already), they're not really that complicated tools. They could devote like maybe a year of engineering time and get it pretty much compatible.
Write their scripts without any GNU/uutils/whatever-microsoft-calls-their-evil-uutils-fork extensions. Then their scripts could run across all platforms, including GNU, uutils, FreeBSD and BusyBox
Sorry but that's besides the point. If improvements to coreutils are not published and upstreamed then the community loses out on potential improvements that trained personnel at a successful company make. Not being dependent on such utils is a different discussion and doesn't solve the core issue.
Yeah I'd like for them to use AGPL but even GPLv3 or it's derivatives are fine as long as they emphasise FOSS
-
At work, yes
Well, my experiences with my coworkers would lead me to pretty much exactly the opposite conclusion: the majority would probably intentionally avoid the GPL, if they even care at all.
-
getting rid of the gpl is the motivation behind e.g. companies sponsoring clang/llvm so hard right now.
Is it? As I understand it, LLVM is much easier to work with than GCC, especially given their LLVM IR and passes frameworks.
sure, but it didn't get much attention until gcc switched to gpl v3 from gpl v2 and apple decided to jump ship to it
my point is that competitors to gpl software are always advertised through their technical merits (valid or not), but the point behind their development is getting rid of gpl-licensed software
-
I can't believe professional developers choose MIT because they can't be arsed to look at the license choices
Well professional developers are often employed by companies that want make use of open source code to sell their proprietary code. It seems more likely to me that those companies will instruct their developers not to work on any GPL code rather than some big ideological shift in the individual developers.
-
I use LLVM because it's good, but I would like it even more if it was GPL and I agree with OP's comment as well.
However, you're literally the guy that replies "oh, so you hate oranges" to people that say "I like apples" or however that meme goes. How about you don't completely twist people's justifications into something they never said.
chill, man. i've never said this is consciously (or at all) his reasoning for not choosing the gpl. what i mean is that, collectively, this is what's pushing the development, sponsoring, and adoption of more and more tooling with permissive licenses
-
They are maliciously harming the community. They need to be named and shamed. I still seethe at OpenBSD using it. Why is it so hard for them to understand? Why do they want to give away their work for the taking to corporations who just want to make money off of their backs?
they have a different view on what freedom means
-
they have a different view on what freedom means
Then it's not one that is actively helping the FOSS community
-
Well, my experiences with my coworkers would lead me to pretty much exactly the opposite conclusion: the majority would probably intentionally avoid the GPL, if they even care at all.
Why do they not care? And why would they avoid GPL?
-
The rust coreutils project choosing the MIT license is just another gambit to allow something like android or chromeos happen to gnu+linux, where all of the userland gets replaced by proprietary junk.
And yet that's a popularly welcomed approach, for some reason. Just look at the number of thumbs down this has. https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/1781
yeah, unfortunately most people in the foss community are the apolitical/free thinker types who hate the fsf bc it is "too political/evangelist" and don't want to understand how user freedom is affected by permissive licenses
-
The unfortunate reality is that a significant proportion of software engineers (and other IT folks) are either laissez-faire "libertarians" who are ideologically opposed to the restrictions in the GPL, or "apolitical" tech-bros who are mostly just interested in their six figure paychecks.
To these folks, the MIT/BSD licenses have fewer restrictions, and are therefore more free, and are therefore more better.
Add to this, the constant badmouthing of GNU and FSF from the crony bootlickers and sadly this is what we get
The tech crowd is also more of a consumer kind these days than the hacky kind, so it's much easier to push corporate shite with a little bit of polish on top
-
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"
Here's a fun idea, let's fork these MIT-based projects and licence them under the AGPL
-
Here's a fun idea, let's fork these MIT-based projects and licence them under the AGPL
If I could code at the level that these people do, I definitely would. If I ever publish anything that I've written for myself it will never be MIT/BSD licensed
-
Write their scripts without any GNU/uutils/whatever-microsoft-calls-their-evil-uutils-fork extensions. Then their scripts could run across all platforms, including GNU, uutils, FreeBSD and BusyBox
Sorry but that's besides the point. If improvements to coreutils are not published and upstreamed then the community loses out on potential improvements that trained personnel at a successful company make. Not being dependent on such utils is a different discussion and doesn't solve the core issue.
Yeah I'd like for them to use AGPL but even GPLv3 or it's derivatives are fine as long as they emphasise FOSS
What improvements are you thinking of? I can see that reasoning with something like the Linux kernel where there's a lot of complex and integrated code, but ultimately individual coreutils commands are really simple. There's very little you can do to extend something like
ls... And if you do, you can just make your ownsuperlscommand and not have to deal with any licensing restrictions.With regards to AGPL vs GPL, none of the coreutils programs have network connectivity, so I'm not sure what the network requirement actually adds?
-
What improvements are you thinking of? I can see that reasoning with something like the Linux kernel where there's a lot of complex and integrated code, but ultimately individual coreutils commands are really simple. There's very little you can do to extend something like
ls... And if you do, you can just make your ownsuperlscommand and not have to deal with any licensing restrictions.With regards to AGPL vs GPL, none of the coreutils programs have network connectivity, so I'm not sure what the network requirement actually adds?
Again, it's not about the actual programs being simple. Just because they are simple in usage doesn't mean they should be encouraged to use a license that harms FOSS development. If we allow these "simple" utilities now, it sets the dangerous precedent for companies to push towards more software with such licenses and swipe FOSS advancements without contributing anything back. Corporations which do not contribute back to the FOSS community do not deserve to take anything from the community either.
Unfortunately, I alone am powerless to implement such measures when a large group of software developers decide to not take this into account when writing software.
I selected AGPL because I find it to be a little more strict compared to GPL. Any derivative of GPL is fine as long as it promotes open source development
-
The mit license allows a mix of public and commercial code run by the same company, with minimal legal issues. One can use other tactics I am sure, but this one seems good when the commercial code absolutely needs the public code .
I think some confusion here can be resolved by stating this is anti foss, taking advantage of foss, it is capitalism taking advantage of having a good code base while making sure any contribution from outside the company is minimized. At the same time it gives my company absolute control over the private part.
Usually get into arguments here! I’m not defending it, but am saying open source would be less without.
I understand this may not be exactly how you meant your comment, but I think it's important to clarify that free/libre software can also be commercial software, and in fact must allow commercial use in order to fit the Free Software Definition. It is probably easier to make lots of money with non-freely licensed software but I think contrasting "public" code with "commercial" code muddies the terminological waters a bit.
-
Freedom for the rich and powerful to fuck over society and everyone else!
-
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"
Honestly it's probably just because so many devs are involved more in their code and don't want to worry about the nuances and headaches involved in licensing. MIT is still open source.
