it's been a trend for a while unfortunately. getting rid of the gpl is the motivation behind e.g. companies sponsoring clang/llvm so hard right now. there are also the developers that think permissive licenses are "freer" bc freedom is doing whatever you want /s. they're ideologically motivated to ditch the gpl so they'll support the change even if there's no benefit for them, financial or otherwise.
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
119 points (94.1% liked)
Linux
52350 readers
850 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Some people might say that so many companies contributing free and open code to clang/llvm instead of GCC is real world evidence against the idea that companies only contribute to free software because the GPL makes them. Or even that permissive licenses can lead to greater corporate sharing than the GPL does. Why does Apple openly contribute to LLVM but refuse to ship GPL3 anything?
According to the web, Red Hat is the most evil company in Open Source. They are also the biggest contributor to Xorg and Wayland. Those are MIT licensed. Why don’t they just keep all their code to themselves? The license would allow it after all. Why did they license systemd as GPL? They did not have to.
The memory allocator used in my distro was written by Microsoft. I have not paid them a dime and I enjoy “the 4 freedoms” with the code they gave me because it is completely free software. Guess what license it uses?
load more comments
(1 replies)
getting rid of the gpl is the motivation behind e.g. companies sponsoring clang/llvm so hard right now
And there it is. Follow the money.
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
Then it's not one that is actively helping the FOSS community
How is actually writing and contributing free software not “actively helping the FOSS community”?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
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. :P
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
MIT/GPL is fine for smaller tools.
For small programs the FSF/GNU even suggests considering not using the GPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah, specifically for something like coreutils I can't see the malicious endgame that is suggested by others here. Is the fear that a proprietary version of cat or pwd or printf takes over the ecosystem and then traps users into a nonfree agreement? Or a proprietary coreutils superset that offers some new tool and does the same thing? Or a proprietary coreutils that generates profit for businesses without attribution to the developers? What would stop anyone from just writing their own proprietary set of tools to do the same thing now, even if uutils didn't exist? Clearly not much, since uutils did exactly that (minus the proprietary bit).
I personally don't see a compelling reason to change to MIT, but I also don't see the problem.
What's stopping people from doing that today is network effects. There are enough differences today between bsd coreutils and gnu coreutils that substituting one for the other doesn't work out of the box.
The chain of events that would cause a problem are: due to Ubuntu popularity rust MIT core utils overtakes gnu coreutils and people drop support for gnu coreutils, then a large and we'll funded corporate entity could privately fork rust coreutils and lock people in.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I worked on an oss library with an MIT license and my colleagues told me they with that instead of GPL was with GPL it basically forces anyone who uses the library to make everything in their project available.
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 everyone using GPL code had to make their entire project FOSS then TPLink and DLink wouldn't have any market share. The only reason OpenWRT exists is because Linksys was forced to open up their code because they had illegally refrained from opensourcing their code, which was a great positive for the community
load more comments
(2 replies)
Maybe there could be another reason why people choose MIT to begin with:
When you start a new repo on github it makes suggestions which license to use, and I bet many people can't be arsed to think about it and just accept what they're offered. [My memory is a little patchy since I very rarely use github anymore, but I definitely remember something like this.] And maybe github tends to suggest MIT.
That said, please undestand that many, many git platforms exist and there is no reason at all to choose one of the two that actually have the word git in them.
load more comments
(22 replies)