What's with the move to MIT over AGPL for utilities?
-
Altruism towards shareholders, not the open-source community
And they are mutually exclusive, in your eyes?
-
Apple makes the source code to all their core utilities available? Nobody cares but they do.
Why do they?
They are BSD licensed (very similar to MIT). According to the crowd here, Apple would never Open Source their changes. Yet, in the real world, they do.
Every Linux distro uses CUPS for printing. Apple wrote that and gave it away as free software.
How do we explain that?
There are many companies that use BSD as a base. None of them have forked the BSD utilities.
Why not?
"Commercial" is not the opposite of free/libre. In fact, GPL licensed software can be "taken commercial" with a guarantee that it will remain libre, whereas BSD-licensed software doesn't have those guarantees.
-
And they are mutually exclusive, in your eyes?
In this case, yes. If you were altruistic toward the community, shareholders could instruct devs to use it anyway so it works out for both groups. Doesn't work the other way around
-
Why do they not care? And why would they avoid GPL?
Why do they not care?
Because, for many of them, they don't have any reason to. In other words, privilege. Copyleft licensing is a subversive, anti-establishment thing, and software engineers are predominantly people who benefit from the established power structures. Middle/upper class white men (I'm included in that category, by the way). There's basically no pressure for them to rock the boat.
And why would they avoid GPL
Because many of them are "libertarian" ideologues who have a myopic focus on negative liberty (as opposed to the positive variety).
-
Why do they not care?
Because, for many of them, they don't have any reason to. In other words, privilege. Copyleft licensing is a subversive, anti-establishment thing, and software engineers are predominantly people who benefit from the established power structures. Middle/upper class white men (I'm included in that category, by the way). There's basically no pressure for them to rock the boat.
And why would they avoid GPL
Because many of them are "libertarian" ideologues who have a myopic focus on negative liberty (as opposed to the positive variety).
Look, I understand if your boss tells you to not write Open-source/only use MIT so they can profit off of it later on. But for the people who have a choice, why wouldn't they? I don't see how it hurts their bottom line.
I'm middle class and here I am raging on Lemmy about software licenses LMAO
-
In this case, yes. If you were altruistic toward the community, shareholders could instruct devs to use it anyway so it works out for both groups. Doesn't work the other way around
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
-
Look, I understand if your boss tells you to not write Open-source/only use MIT so they can profit off of it later on. But for the people who have a choice, why wouldn't they? I don't see how it hurts their bottom line.
I'm middle class and here I am raging on Lemmy about software licenses LMAO
Yeah, but you and I aren't really representative of all software people. Most of them just want to grill.
-
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?
