3 ms·
I should also mention that there is another remedy to that concern (which I don't necessarily agree is that big of one) is another cultural component of the OSS
by ajarmst 6y ago
I should also mention that there is another remedy to that concern (which I don't necessarily agree is that big of one) is another cultural component of the OSS world: forking. If the party you assigned your copyright to (and remember this would almost always be to a project not an individual), you have the option to carry on (or lobby for other developers to carry on) the project from that point under the GPL, one of whose main points is to guarantee your right to do that. Given the way the community would tend to react to such an attempt, a forked project would almost certainly end up being the new de facto standard.
- garmaine 6y agoI use GPL precisely so that others cannot appropriate the work without contributing back. If I was okay with the outcome you describe, why not just use MIT in the first place?
- pitay 6y agoBecause with the GPL you can still obtain the source code for any changes made to your original work if they want to put any software made for it public. GPL'd software is required to have the source available under GPL to anyone it is distributed to. You can merge any of this code back into your work, as it has to be GPL licenced. With the MIT licence they can distribute proprietary software based on your work and not have the source available, as this is not required with the MIT licence. So you have no way to get the changes or improvements other parties have made if they choose not to give them to you. Take what I am saying with a pinch of salt, others can give a better explanation. I'd suggest looking it up yourself.
- garmaine 6y agoIf you assign copyright to the other entity (the hypothetical under consideration) they have no obligation to follow the GPL and release sources for their later proprietary additions.