• Liwott
    48·
    3 years ago

    MIT license is a great way of making sure corporations will take this and run away with it

    Copying is not theft :) That they “run away with it” by using it for their own projects doesn’t change anything to your use and development

    • scp1548
      91·
      3 years ago

      Its not theft, it’s because those companies will take your code, use it to make themselves more money, and then use that money to continue oppressing you, restricting your freedoms, and spreading anti-open source propaganda as usual. If the code was copyleft, then you wouldn’t have to worry about(or at least worry less about) such a thing happening. What I have described above is already something that has happened and continues to happen to non-copyleft open source code.

      • Liwott
        37·
        3 years ago

        Wouldn’t “an evil company could use your product to make money” be an argument to never release anything for free?

        Indeed, copyleft is not enough to guarantee that corporations won’t make money with your code. Without modifying the code, an evil company could increase its profit just by using your software. So maybe the software should not be free but contain some clause that restricts to non-commercial use only? Maybe throw in some antifascist clause so that fascists groups cannot use your program to increase their efficiency in recruiting more members? Since evil people don’t care about the law, maybe you should only distribute your software to people that you have personnally vetted? Add-in some cryptology so that they cannot distribute it to evil people themselves?

        This never stops, it’s the usual question of freedom vs security. Permissive licences are the ones who lie at the freedom-most part of the spectrum.

        But mostly, this discussion about copyleft has nothing to do with the post.

        • AgreeableLandscapeM
          8·
          3 years ago

          Indeed, copyleft is not enough to guarantee that corporations won’t make money with your code. Without modifying the code, an evil company could increase its profit just by using your software.

          Correct, but depending on the specific license, they would still have to distribute the source (read: not JUST credit you, THEY have to independently provide a way of getting access to the source code), and if they make any improvements, which they’ll probably want to do, they have to share that back with you. This results in the product itself continuously improving for everyone, profit or not.

          If there wasn’t a license term against it, companies will be greatly incentivized to keep any improvements they made closed and therefore their product will be better than the original open source product, which will give their now proprietary product an edge in the market, which has historically shown to be enough to snuff out the original open source efforts.

          • Liwott
            1·
            3 years ago

            Actually, I was only meaning use it internally to improve their own workflow.

            They can still bundle it with other things, only release your code, secretly improving only what they did on top of your API and make money out of the bundle, so why stoppping there and using a free license rather than something with a NC clause?

            On the other hand, one could argue that GPL would refrain a corp from including your software in their product, while at least the cite you get with the MIT license at least gets you some advertisement and potential contirbutors.

            What if other free software developers use a license incompatible with the GPL for their own reason, is it OK to deprive them from the right to simply incorporate your code in the name of fighting big tech?

            I don’t mean to say that it does not make sense to use the GPL, it is probably the most sensible choice if your aim is to fight big tech corporations. But not every piece of software is written as a commercial weapon.

        • scp1548
          2·
          3 years ago

          I agree this discussion has nothing to do with the post. That said, I believe that just because copyleft does not remove all possibilities of misuse of your code, I believe it prevents the vast majority of them. Like you said, this is a freedom vs security issue and the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Copyleft is that correct middle, in my opinion.

          • Liwott
            14·
            3 years ago

            the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Copyleft is that correct middle, in my opinion.

            Depends what one’s goal is. Is fighting big tech is the most important thing to you, then yes. If you want to share with as many people as possible, no matter their ideology, then no.

    • Ravn
      3·
      3 years ago

      I was alluding to the fact that it’s not a copyleft license. AGPL is a suitable OS license.

      • Liwott
        11·
        3 years ago

        I got that, mine was a critic of copyleft in general. Maybe a bit out of place, but probably not more than your first snarky remark about copyleft on a post that doesn’t say anything about fighting corporations.

        • Ravn
          1·
          3 years ago

          …and my critique is about them not acting in their own interest (and fighting corporations at the same time). Linux wouldn’t have taken off if it weren’t copyleft. It would have been as niche as BSD if it had existed at all.

    • CyclohexaneM
      2·
      3 years ago

      It allows corporations to use your work for free without any obligations.

      GPL is not good enough, as it still allows them to do so as long as it’s used for internal work only, or aren’t selling a derivative work of it. But at least if they do make modifications to it and sell it, then they have to open source it.