5 ms·

> and of those that do care, they are likely to lean against copyleft What is this based on? Asking in good faith.

rcxdude 3y ago
My impression that the vast majority of linux users who are thinking about code licensing are using it commercially and so copyleft represents an extra burden on them. (also, IMO, copyleft vs non-copyleft doesn't seem to make a huge difference to the outcomes copyleft advocates claim to care about, especially to the average user - most MIT licensed projects still generally receive contributions from people using them commercially, and some GPL projects (linux itself suffering from this greatly) still suffer from being fragmented by proprietary patches and forks, even if the license is being complied with.)
- zelphirkalt 3y ago
  I would say copyleft licenses can even be better for a business, since they make sure, that competitors cannot grab and run, but need to contribute back. Businesses just need to understand, that copyleft also applies to the competition, when they use copyleft licensed projects.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    Agreed, and as a friend pointed out to me years ago, there's nothing stopping people who author GPLd code from making it clear that if a corporation wants a different licensing arrangement for something that's under GPL, they're perfectly capable of negotiating that with the author and paying for it. That this doesn't happen often shows the motivation of most companies using open source is ultimately ... just looking for free work.
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      > That this doesn't happen often shows the motivation of most companies using open source is ultimately ... just looking for free work. Entering into contracts is really annoying. Companies don't just hand out checks, they have accountants who ask "what is this for, how is it being spent, how do we pay taxes on it", etc. "Pay this random developer that you have no pre-existing relationship with" is not as trivial as it sounds.
      - Someone 3y ago
        There’s also “how do we know they’ll be around three years from now for support?”. Working with a company feels more secure in that respect, especially if that company is large and reasonably old. The “this” in “That this doesn't happen often” can also refer to “people who author GPLd code from making it clear that if a corporation wants a different licensing arrangement” not happening very often. Yes, there are projects that explicitly mention it, but I think those are in the minority.
    - _flux 3y ago
      This can only happen if they are truly making the project only themselves and accepting external contributions only via a CLA—and I expect the mere existence of CLA to reduce the amount of external contributions in itself.
      - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
        Yes that's a fair point. If I recall Googlers are just completely forbidden from contributing to projects with a CLA.
  - rcxdude 3y ago
    It's rare that this weighs heavily compared to the administrative burden of complying with the GPL. Most open-source code (especially things like coreutils) is effectively commons: something which many companies rely on but doesn't represent a competitive edge to them. So there's already a strong incentive to contribute upstream: it's easier than trying to maintain your own fork. A competitor hoarding their own contributions is more likely to be shooting themselves in the foot than giving themselves an edge.
- nindalf 3y ago
  > most MIT licensed projects still generally receive contributions from people using them commercially I agree. I’d speculate that projects being hosted on GitHub is a big part of that. With the code and discussions around it happening in the open, and the barrier to contribute substantially reduced it’s hard to justify forking it internally and maintaining the fork. The path of least resistance is to clone it from GitHub every time and to contribute changes back, regardless of license. For most projects we don’t need the GPL to compel this behaviour because that’s not what many (but not all) companies are doing in any case. This isn’t a blanket statement though. Obviously the size of the project matters, the scope of the changes made etc. For example phone manufacturers always fork Android and add their changes on top. They only release the code to be compliant with the GPL, and they do so grudgingly. Having Linux licensed under GPL benefits us. But other projects? Doesn’t make a difference. Who is forking (for example) git and making private improvements they don’t contribute back? No one. It would be just as feature filled, useful and successful whether it was MIT or GPL.
- palata 3y ago
  > most MIT licensed projects still generally receive contributions from people using them commercially My experience working professionally in a permissive open source project is that the vast majority of commercial use is not contributed back (very often it would be very low quality anyway). > some GPL projects (linux itself suffering from this greatly) still suffer from being fragmented by proprietary patches and forks I don't see this as an argument in favour of permissive licences: proprietary patches and forks are also happening with permissive licences.
- palata 3y ago
  > My impression that the vast majority of linux users who are thinking about code licensing are using it commercially and so copyleft represents an extra burden on them. My impression is that it is like wearing a face mask when you are sick. You should wear a mask to protect the others, but people generally don't give a shit. There is no extra burden in choosing a copyleft license for your project (you still have the copyright, you can do whatever you want with it). What creates extra burden is when you use copyleft dependencies. But that's not your choice. And as a user, I'm pretty sure you are happier if code that you don't own is open source. All devs should push for copyleft licenses because it benefits them as users. But for some reason many are pushing for whatever is best for companies who employ them.

My impression that the vast majority of linux users who are thinking about code licensing are using it commercially and so copyleft represents an extra burden on them. (also, IMO, copyleft vs non-copyleft doesn't seem to make a huge difference to the outcomes copyleft advocates claim to care about, especially to the average user - most MIT licensed projects still generally receive contributions from people using them commercially, and some GPL projects (linux itself suffering from this greatly) still suffer from being fragmented by proprietary patches and forks, even if the license is being complied with.)

zelphirkalt 3y ago
I would say copyleft licenses can even be better for a business, since they make sure, that competitors cannot grab and run, but need to contribute back. Businesses just need to understand, that copyleft also applies to the competition, when they use copyleft licensed projects.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  Agreed, and as a friend pointed out to me years ago, there's nothing stopping people who author GPLd code from making it clear that if a corporation wants a different licensing arrangement for something that's under GPL, they're perfectly capable of negotiating that with the author and paying for it. That this doesn't happen often shows the motivation of most companies using open source is ultimately ... just looking for free work.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    > That this doesn't happen often shows the motivation of most companies using open source is ultimately ... just looking for free work. Entering into contracts is really annoying. Companies don't just hand out checks, they have accountants who ask "what is this for, how is it being spent, how do we pay taxes on it", etc. "Pay this random developer that you have no pre-existing relationship with" is not as trivial as it sounds.
    - Someone 3y ago
      There’s also “how do we know they’ll be around three years from now for support?”. Working with a company feels more secure in that respect, especially if that company is large and reasonably old. The “this” in “That this doesn't happen often” can also refer to “people who author GPLd code from making it clear that if a corporation wants a different licensing arrangement” not happening very often. Yes, there are projects that explicitly mention it, but I think those are in the minority.
  - _flux 3y ago
    This can only happen if they are truly making the project only themselves and accepting external contributions only via a CLA—and I expect the mere existence of CLA to reduce the amount of external contributions in itself.
    - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      Yes that's a fair point. If I recall Googlers are just completely forbidden from contributing to projects with a CLA.
- rcxdude 3y ago
  It's rare that this weighs heavily compared to the administrative burden of complying with the GPL. Most open-source code (especially things like coreutils) is effectively commons: something which many companies rely on but doesn't represent a competitive edge to them. So there's already a strong incentive to contribute upstream: it's easier than trying to maintain your own fork. A competitor hoarding their own contributions is more likely to be shooting themselves in the foot than giving themselves an edge.
nindalf 3y ago
> most MIT licensed projects still generally receive contributions from people using them commercially I agree. I’d speculate that projects being hosted on GitHub is a big part of that. With the code and discussions around it happening in the open, and the barrier to contribute substantially reduced it’s hard to justify forking it internally and maintaining the fork. The path of least resistance is to clone it from GitHub every time and to contribute changes back, regardless of license. For most projects we don’t need the GPL to compel this behaviour because that’s not what many (but not all) companies are doing in any case. This isn’t a blanket statement though. Obviously the size of the project matters, the scope of the changes made etc. For example phone manufacturers always fork Android and add their changes on top. They only release the code to be compliant with the GPL, and they do so grudgingly. Having Linux licensed under GPL benefits us. But other projects? Doesn’t make a difference. Who is forking (for example) git and making private improvements they don’t contribute back? No one. It would be just as feature filled, useful and successful whether it was MIT or GPL.
palata 3y ago
> most MIT licensed projects still generally receive contributions from people using them commercially My experience working professionally in a permissive open source project is that the vast majority of commercial use is not contributed back (very often it would be very low quality anyway). > some GPL projects (linux itself suffering from this greatly) still suffer from being fragmented by proprietary patches and forks I don't see this as an argument in favour of permissive licences: proprietary patches and forks are also happening with permissive licences.
palata 3y ago
> My impression that the vast majority of linux users who are thinking about code licensing are using it commercially and so copyleft represents an extra burden on them. My impression is that it is like wearing a face mask when you are sick. You should wear a mask to protect the others, but people generally don't give a shit. There is no extra burden in choosing a copyleft license for your project (you still have the copyright, you can do whatever you want with it). What creates extra burden is when you use copyleft dependencies. But that's not your choice. And as a user, I'm pretty sure you are happier if code that you don't own is open source. All devs should push for copyleft licenses because it benefits them as users. But for some reason many are pushing for whatever is best for companies who employ them.