this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
999 points (88.5% liked)

linuxmemes

21607 readers
719 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
  •  

    Please report posts and comments that break these rules!


    Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.

    founded 2 years ago
    MODERATORS
     

    Context:

    Permissive licenses (commonly referred to as "cuck licenses") like the MIT license allow others to modify your software and release it under an unfree license. Copyleft licenses (like the Gnu General Public License) mandate that all derivative works remain free.

    Andrew Tanenbaum developed MINIX, a modular operating system kernel. Intel went ahead and used it to build Management Engine, arguably one of the most widespread and invasive pieces of malware in the world, without even as much as telling him. There's nothing Tanenbaum could do, since the MIT license allows this.

    Erik Andersen is one of the developers of Busybox, a minimal implementation of that's suited for embedded systems. Many companies tried to steal his code and distribute it with their unfree products, but since it's protected under the GPL, Busybox developers were able to sue them and gain some money in the process.

    Interestingly enough, Tanenbaum doesn't seem to mind what intel did. But there are some examples out there of people regretting releasing their work under a permissive license.

    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] [email protected] 34 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    If I want to make a piece of software to improve people's lives

    If that is your intention, GPL would make more sense, as every improvement and development would be forced to be made available to those people, thus helping them further.

    I doubt that your code helps anyone who needs/deserves to be helped, after beeing processed by big corpo.

    You could think about your definition of freedom. For me: My freedom ends, where it restricts others people freedom - I shouldn't be free to rob people and call it restriction if someone forbids this.

    [–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    GPL means big corporations just won't use it. If they have to make their software open source, they will just search for an alternative or make their own.

    [–] [email protected] 30 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    GPL means big corporations just won’t use it.

    Great. No corporation is working on software for the freedom of its users.

    they will just search for an alternative or make their own.

    Or pay the developer to dual license, which can and should be the preferred way for FOSS developers to fund their work?

    [–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    Great. No corporation is working on software for the freedom of its users

    A lot of people don't care.

    Or pay the developer to dual license, which can and should be the preferred way for FOSS developers to fund their work?

    Not everyone wants to deal with that (setting up payment methods, filling tax forms, ...)

    In addition, as a developer for a corp, I can tell you having to pay for a license would prevent me from using most smaller libraries because the process of getting it approved and paid is too difficult, even if the money is not an issue.

    [–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    You answer are reasonable justifications for why MIT is used, but they also work pretty well to illustrate the title of the post: If you are doing MIT, you are working for free. If you are working with GPL, you are working for freedom.

    [–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

    you are working for freedom.

    Which is still working for free.

    If you use MIT, you make products (paid or foss) better for everyone, in a sense making the world better.

    If you use GPL, you push FOSS to be more prevalent, arguably making the world better in a different way.

    What I don't like is that the title minimizes the contributions of the MIT developers.

    [–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

    I'm pretty sure that I got paid to work on GPL software, and I am pretty sure that said software would never have been developed if I wasn't going to be paid for it.

    What I don’t like is that the title minimizes the contributions of the MIT developers.

    It's not about the contribution. The MIT license still lets people study and share the code. It's Free Software. The contribution is still there. The "problem" is that those contributions can be taken and exploited by large corporations.

    [–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

    The "problem" is that those contributions can be taken and exploited by large corporations.

    You say exploited, I say used. Or on the other hand, you can argue that large FOSS projects like Linux distros are exploiting smaller projects they package, since they don't share their donations...

    IMO there is no issue if the wishes of the author are respected. The authors wishing for companies to use their code is just as valid as wishing to restrict it to FOSS.

    [–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

    There is no fundamental problem in working for free either. It's second-order effects that we should worry about. Those who are "working for free" because they "just want have software being used by people" are diluting the value of the professionals and in the long term end up being as detrimental as professional designers or photographers who "work for exposure".

    If you ask me, the reason that is so hard to fund FOSS development is not because of bureaucracies, but because we are competing with privileged developers who are able to afford giving away their work for free.

    [–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

    I disagree. Sure, for some larger crucial projects, companies would pay. But for the majority of (small) projects, we would just handwrite an inferior solution from scratch rather than handle the bureaucracy. The result would be wasted additional effort, inferior features and more bugs.

    And even if that was not the case and bureaucracy was not an issue, the question is how much better would the paid for "professional" FOSS software be compared to the free one. If it was so much better, that it justified the price, it would outcompete the free one anyway. And if it is not, then by definition it is better we use the free one.

    [–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    we would just handwrite an inferior solution from scratch rather than handle the bureaucracy.

    What company are you working for whose leadership thinks that it is a better use of their time to reimplementing FOSS solutions just because they can't get it "for free"?

    [–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    leadership thinks that it is a better

    You seem to be having some comprehension issue, that is not what I wrote.

    [–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

    So what is your argument? Who is responsible for the decision-making process that leads to "hand writing an inferior solution"? Why do you think that this at all acceptable and reasonable?

    You've been writing nothing but opinion-as-fact and resorting to wild rationalizations to justify your preferences, now you want to couch yourself under the questionable ethics of "it's done this way and I can not fight it, so it must be the correct thing to do"?

    Let's make a simple test: if you were in charge and had the choice between spending some $$ to dual license a GPL package or to pay for the development of a GPL-only system vs paying $$$$ to do it in-house because you did not find a MIT/BSD package that does what you need, what would you do?

    [–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

    I did not write 90% of the things you claim I did. Go make starw-man arguments somewhere else.

    [–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    If you want to talk about fallacies, here are some good examples:

    we would just handwrite an inferior solution from scratch rather than handle the bureaucracy.

    Bandwagon Fallacy

    If it was so much better, that it justified the price, it would outcompete the free one anyway.

    Failure to understand basic microeconomics


    I did not write 90% of the things you claim I did.

    That is true and at the same time does not contradict my point. The whole discussion is about how MIT-style licensing is not as effective for software freedom as GPL licenses. And because you do not have anything to stand on to make an argument against the statement, you keep bringing points that do not address the main issue. When asked directly what you would do, you refuse to give a definite answer.

    [–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    The whole discussion is about how MIT-style licensing is not as effective for software freedom as GPL licenses.

    No one else is arguing about that here you 🤡 That's just your straw-man.

    [–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

    If you are doing MIT, you are working for free. If you are working with GPL, you are working for freedom.

    Damn, that'a good.

    [–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    Not everyone wants to deal with that (setting up payment methods, filling tax forms, …)

    So you wish that all corporations shouldn't pay their developers at all, because MIT licence exists?

    [–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

    I did not write anything even in the neighborhood of that. Go learn how to read with understanding.

    [–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago

    Great, I'll be a bit absolute and say that if a corporation doesn't want to use my GPL code I see it as a good thing, corporations tend to be soulless leeches.