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.

  • Zeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Developers should choose a different license if they don’t want to free their code or go work on a project that’s inline with their values then. Poor them, I could care less. The GPL is made for YOUR freedom. Anything that allows a developer to not release their code because they don’t want to, well, that software becomes proprietary, which invades your freedom. Of course the GPL “restricts” those types of developers freedom to do whatever they want, how else would the software stay free? Don’t really understand what your arguement is here.

    • LeFantome@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      The GPL does nothing for MY freedom.

      Freedom to have sex with somebody against their will is not a “freedom” for me. It is subjugation for them. Something does not become a “freedom” simply because it benefits me.

      The right to eat crops grown by others is not a “freedom”. It is an entitlement.

      That said, there is nothing immoral, unethical, or wrong about me growing crops and providing seeds to others on the condition that they share the resulting crops with me or even with everyone. This is a contract and hopefully a mutually beneficial one. All good as long as the terms are known up-front and all parties consent.

      In my view, that last paragraph is the GPL. There is nothing wrong with it at all. However, it does not make either party to the contact “more free”. In fact, you a bit less free in the future when you agree to a contact, because you have to abide by its terms. But at least you got there freely.

      Permissive licenses are not a contract. They are a gift. They make no demands. They take away no freedom at all.

      Both are valid choices. I have no quarrel with somebody choosing the GPL.

      I do not agree that permissive licenses are less free or that the GPL is moreso.

      If it was truly about MY freedom, choosing a permissive license would not upset you.