5 ms·

> This is a false dichotomy. There is no false dichotomy because I never set up any kind of dichotomy. I'm just listing examples of folks that I want to use my

> This is a false dichotomy. There is no false dichotomy because I never set up any kind of dichotomy. I'm just listing examples of folks that I want to use my code. And you left off the rest of my quote that explains in a bit more detail: > Given the current intellectual property regime, corporations are incentivized against the use of copyleft software in a large variety of circumstances. Thus, copyleft software, particularly libraries, is regularly avoided by corporations. Since some of these corporations also play a huge role in the FOSS world itself, this leads to systemic network effects that push folks strongly towards the use of permissive licenses. Thus, putting aside ideology and activism, it is simply a reality that if I publish a library with a copyleft license, it's less likely to be used by folks, which is inhibits my goal. The fact that corporations do use copyleft in some places doesn't negate this point at all. It's pretty clear that there are a wide variety of circumstances in which copyleft is avoided. This isn't theoretical or hand wavy. I have direct experience with this. One of the criteria Visual Studio Code used to evaluate ripgrep was its permissive license.[1] [1] - https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/19983#issuecomment-282581996 https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/19983#issuecommen...

hakre 6y ago
The licensing requirements of third parties then was the reason you switched to MIT license? Was there a key-moment and would you be okay to share more about it?
- burntsushi 6y ago
  Hmmm, maybe there is some confusion here. At least for ripgrep in particular, it has always been dual licensed under the MIT and the UNLICENSE[1]. This was itself a continuation of a decision I made a bit earlier with regards to another project[2]. Namely, I had been using only the UNLICENSE. But dual licensing with the MIT allowed folks with a more conservative risk profile to use the project. But the point of linking to VS Code's decision was to say that I have direct experience with situations in which a copyleft license might have inhibited use of my software. That is, it's an example that runs counter to my goal of as many people using my code as possible. This doesn't mean copyleft is never used in popular projects or that copyleft somehow perfectly inhibits popularity. I mean, obviously that's not true. But the existence of popular copyleft projects doesn't mean that copyleft isn't itself a barrier to use in other circumstances. [1] - https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep/blob/master/COPYING https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep/blob/master/COPYING [2] - https://github.com/BurntSushi/byteorder/issues/26 https://github.com/BurntSushi/byteorder/issues/26
Hokusai 6y ago
> This isn't theoretical or hand wavy. I have direct experience with this. Yes. I never questioned that part. > corporations are incentivized against the use of copyleft software And what is that incentive? Permissive licenses. Remove all MIT licenses and replace them with copyleft ones and you will see drastic increase on Copyleft usage. Opposing copyleft because corporations is harmful for everybody. I understand why corporations choose non-copyleft and that exact reasons is why copyleft is so important.
- burntsushi 6y ago
  You have it backwards. The incentive is not permissive licenses. The incentive structure confess from the IP regime itself. People treat patents, trade secrets and so on as things of value in their own right. Copyleft could force the publication of code that companies want to otherwise keep private. So they are incentivized to use permissive licenses to avoid that scenario.
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    That is, the only reason for permissive licenses is to let corporations own code.
    - burntsushi 6y ago
      No. And it's not just corporations. Because of our IP system, IP (patents, copyrights) ends up being part of the portfolio of any company, including a startup. If the startup is looking to get acquired, that IP ends up being a part of the value of the startup. And besides, some people might not believe in or care about the four essential freedoms. They don't have to be corporations. And then of course, there are the ideological reasons that I listed in my OP.

hakre 6y ago

The licensing requirements of third parties then was the reason you switched to MIT license? Was there a key-moment and would you be okay to share more about it?

burntsushi 6y ago
Hmmm, maybe there is some confusion here. At least for ripgrep in particular, it has always been dual licensed under the MIT and the UNLICENSE[1]. This was itself a continuation of a decision I made a bit earlier with regards to another project[2]. Namely, I had been using only the UNLICENSE. But dual licensing with the MIT allowed folks with a more conservative risk profile to use the project. But the point of linking to VS Code's decision was to say that I have direct experience with situations in which a copyleft license might have inhibited use of my software. That is, it's an example that runs counter to my goal of as many people using my code as possible. This doesn't mean copyleft is never used in popular projects or that copyleft somehow perfectly inhibits popularity. I mean, obviously that's not true. But the existence of popular copyleft projects doesn't mean that copyleft isn't itself a barrier to use in other circumstances. [1] - https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep/blob/master/COPYING https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep/blob/master/COPYING [2] - https://github.com/BurntSushi/byteorder/issues/26 https://github.com/BurntSushi/byteorder/issues/26

Hokusai 6y ago

> This isn't theoretical or hand wavy. I have direct experience with this. Yes. I never questioned that part. > corporations are incentivized against the use of copyleft software And what is that incentive? Permissive licenses. Remove all MIT licenses and replace them with copyleft ones and you will see drastic increase on Copyleft usage. Opposing copyleft because corporations is harmful for everybody. I understand why corporations choose non-copyleft and that exact reasons is why copyleft is so important.

burntsushi 6y ago
You have it backwards. The incentive is not permissive licenses. The incentive structure confess from the IP regime itself. People treat patents, trade secrets and so on as things of value in their own right. Copyleft could force the publication of code that companies want to otherwise keep private. So they are incentivized to use permissive licenses to avoid that scenario.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  That is, the only reason for permissive licenses is to let corporations own code.
  - burntsushi 6y ago
    No. And it's not just corporations. Because of our IP system, IP (patents, copyrights) ends up being part of the portfolio of any company, including a startup. If the startup is looking to get acquired, that IP ends up being a part of the value of the startup. And besides, some people might not believe in or care about the four essential freedoms. They don't have to be corporations. And then of course, there are the ideological reasons that I listed in my OP.