4 ms·
Don't forget the weak-copyleft licenses like the MPL, where it's perfectly fine to use it in commercial projects, but all users are guaranteed access to the cop
by mook 9y ago
Don't forget the weak-copyleft licenses like the MPL, where it's perfectly fine to use it in commercial projects, but all users are guaranteed access to the copyleft source code (but not the proprietary code on top).
- thesuitonym 9y agoThis is exactly what MIT and BSD licenses do.
- arglwarg 9y agoNope (also that would imply there is not functional difference between non-reciprocal licenses like MIT/BSD and a reciprocal one like MPLv2). The original article highlights LibreOffice and its success using the reciprocal MPLv2 not without reason. [Edit: mixed up the first paragraph.]
- snovv_crash 9y agoFalse. If I take a BSD/MIT library and fork it, I don't need to contribute the changes back. The MPL(v2) forces forks to be open source, but any files added to the project can remain closed source allowing it to be used as a library for closed source applications.
- thesuitonym 9y agoOkay but that's not what I was replying to. The post I replied to made no mention of reciprocity, only saying that the original code was available.
- eropple 9y agoHe explicitly calls out "copyleft source code." That means reciprocity.
- quadrangle 9y agoCopyleft is about pay-it-forward not reciprocity. There's zero reciprocity in copyleft besides the incidental fact that updates paid-forward to others might be discovered and accessed by the original person who gave you the software (or that you could share the updates back in reciprocity, but that's not part of the license, it's just something you might do).
- bonzini 9y agoNo, MIT and BSD allow proprietary derivatives of any kind, throwing away any expectations of reciprocity. MPL and LGPL draw a line between code that is allowed to be distributed under a proprietary license, and code where the copyleft applies.