With GPL, you're programming Freedom. With MIT, you're programming for free. ( lemmy.world ) Englisch

MystikIncarnate , vor 22 Tagen

I've seen busybox in a lot of software that's not free. One notable example is VMware. It runs on top of esxi as a package to provide command line functions to VMware hosts.

I'm pretty sure (IDK, I don't do development for vmw) that it's running on top of VMware's kernel, and they have binaries that you execute from busybox that interface with the vmkernel to accomplish things.

I don't have all the details and I'm far from an operating system guru/developer/whatever. I think that's permissible under copyleft, since they're not running things that you paid for on top of busybox, but I have no idea. I'm also not a lawyer, but they've been doing it forever, as far as I know.

Does anyone know more about it? I'm just surprised that smaller fish have fried for infringement, but someone like VMware is shipping busybox without reprocussions.

Maybe it's not busybox? Maybe it's something that just looks and acts like busybox? Idk.

Aux , vor 23 Tagen

Public domain or GTFO!

rottingleaf , vor 23 Tagen

TIL openssh, xorg, apache, nginx, all of *bsds are cuck-licensed.

While GPL-licensed linux, used by every corp out there, is not.

but since it’s protected under the GPL, Busybox developers were able to sue them and gain some money in the process.

Don't need to steal anything. Lots of today's usage doesn't involve giving a binary to the customer. Thus Google, FB and who else don't have to share any of their internal changes to Linux.

alsaaas , vor 24 Tagen

I've taken up saying "temporarily free/libre" and "permanently free/libre" instead of the permissive/copyleft, since imo "permissive" has a suggestive positive connotation. Especially to ppl who do not know much about the free software movement

nossaquesapao , vor 24 Tagen

Temporarily free gives the idea that the code will stop being free at some point and may cause misunderstandings. It would be better to use nonreciprocal.

alsaaas , vor 24 Tagen

It will stop being free the second a corporation gets it's hands on it, makes improvements and put's those under a proprietary license

cqst , vor 24 Tagen

Yes, but the originally free/libre licensed source code is still out there.

makes improvements and put’s those under a proprietary license

You could also make improvements and release them under a GPL license.

uis , vor 24 Tagen

Temporarily free gives the idea that the code will stop being free at some point

Because it absolutely can and most of the times does.

nossaquesapao , vor 24 Tagen

The original code never stops being free, but the code incorporated into a new project will be, so it's a misleading term to people unfamiliar with open source licensing, that may think the license somehow expires. Even the fsf doesn't use such terminology. They use reciprocal and nonreciprocal, because it translates the idea that gpl-like licenses create a relationship of reciprocity, and bsd-like ones create a relationship of non reciprocity.

snek_boi , vor 24 Tagen

We are at risk

of losing many developers who would otherwise choose a license like the GPL. Fortunately, I'm glad to be surrounded by people, just like you, who care about licenses like GPL. By uploading this type of content and engaging with it, be show our commitment to it. I wish to suggest how we can deal with this threat.

We will lose developers who choose GPL if we use words that suggest GPL is "restrictive". Sure, the word "restrictive" was avoided in this meme by using the word "copyleft", but the cognitive jump from "permissive" to "restrictive" is minimal: just add an "opposite" and you've got "permissive is the opposite to restrictive". It really is that simple. That's how brain works (check out Relational Frame Theory to see how that works).

So what can we do about it?

Well, we can approach this with science. There is a historical global trend towards people being more meta-cognitive. That means that people are becoming more aware of how our thoughts interpret everyday reality and how to be intentional with our relationship with our thoughts so that we live better lives. We know this trend is happening to virtually everyone everywhere because of the work of brilliant sociologists like Anthony Giddens and Christian Welzel. Heck, even the history of psychology —going from noticing and changing behaviors (behaviorism) to noticing and changing behaviors and thoughts (cognitive-behaviorism), to noticing and changing the context and function of behaviors, thoughts, and emotions (functional contextualism)— reflects this trend.

We can use meta-cognition in our favor; we can use the meta-cognitive tool of framing to change how we think about GPL and MIT licenses. Effective communicators like influencers, political campaign experts, and influential activists use framing all the time. For example, instead of using the dangerous framing that suggests GPL is 'restrictive', we can use another one that truly displays the virtues of the license.

What would this other frame look like? I may not have a perfect answer, but here are some

ways of framing (thinking about) the relationship between licenses like GPL and MIT:

(ironically!!!, these were 'suggested' by an LLM; I wonder if these frames already existed)

• "Investment-Protecting Licenses" vs. "Investment-Risking Licenses" (as in developers invest by working on projects that they could (not) lose the ability to contribute to)
• "Community-Resource-Guarding Licenses" vs. "Exploitation-Vulnerable Licenses"
• "Give-and-Take Licenses" vs. "Take-and-Keep Licenses" ⭐
• "Freedom-Ensuring Licenses" vs. "Freedom-Risking Licenses" ⭐
• "Contribution-Rewarding Licenses" vs. "Contribution-Exploiting Licenses"
• "Open-Source-Preserving Licenses" vs. "Closed-Source-Enabling Licenses"

I'd be happy to hear what you think, including suggestions!

lemmynparty , vor 24 Tagen

There's a fair bit of bias in those terms, which make GPL seem like a 'better' choice than an unrestricted license like MIT.
The truth is, GPL is restrictive to developers.
Copying just one line from a gpl-licensed project will automatically restrict you to using only gpl-compatible licenses.
I'd prefer to advocate for LGPL and similar licenses, as they seem to offer a better tradeoff between user and developer freedom.

TwiddleTwaddle , vor 24 Tagen

GPLs "restrictions" are freedom preserving though. It only restricts developers from keeping dirivitive code proprietary. In order to violate the GPL you'd have to choose to use GPL code and then choose not to release your modified versions of it under a similar copyleft license. It may seem counterintuitive, but having those restrictions results in more software freedom overall - similar to the paradox of intolerance.

I'm not saying MIT or so called permissive licenses are bad, but the permissive/restrictive language is just as loaded as the OPs suggestions. Both styles are needed, but copyleft licenses are better at promoting software freedom.

Edit: I do agree with you that LGPL serves an important role in promoting free/libre software where it would otherwise would never be used.

snek_boi , vor 19 Tagen (Bearbeitet vor 19 Tagen)

There's a fair bit of bias in the terms "restrictive" and "permissive", which make MIT seem like a 'better' choice than a give-and-take license like GPL.

The truth is, MIT is risky for developers. Using just one line from an MIT-licensed project will automatically allow others to exploit your work without giving back. I'd prefer to advocate for balanced licenses that protect both user and developer interests.

lemmynparty , vor 19 Tagen

Ha, maybe I should have licensed my comment.

You’re wrong though.

Using code from an MIT licensed project will not allow others to exploit your work. MIT is compatible with almost all other licenses, so you can incorporate the code without needing to relicense your project.

If you meant that choosing to license your entire project with MIT would allow others to exploit your work, then yes, that’s the whole point of the license.

For some small projects, I’m completely fine with throwing it out into the world with no expectation of anything in return.

If a company ends out using my 50-line file conversion tool in their commercial product, I see that as a bonus thing to put on my résumé.

ILikeBoobies , vor 24 Tagen

I support MIT because I believe that’s how all software should be

Everyone builds upon each other

s_s , vor 23 Tagen

I mean, essentially, the GPL just obligates someone borrowing from you to keep doing things "how it should be".

ILikeBoobies , vor 23 Tagen (Bearbeitet vor 23 Tagen)

Yeah but I don’t really care if someone takes it to sell, it creates an endpoint branch but someone else will create a growing branch

One assumes even an endpoint will pass things upstream

vga , vor 24 Tagen

Copyleft = pro-capital confirmed.