2 ms·
I think a broad bias against copyleft has existed because people felt that it got in the way of just "getting things done" and felt that significant efforts con
by cmrdporcupine 3y ago
I think a broad bias against copyleft has existed because people felt that it got in the way of just "getting things done" and felt that significant efforts contributed to BSD-style licenses would just "get rewarded" through patronage from the larger entities in silicon valley; leading to jobs, or donations, etc.
I think that worked for many while the job market was pumping, VC was flowing, and the BigCorps were hiring and spending money like crazy. So people didn't feel particularly exploited.
But I'm expecting the bias in the community will shift back to copyleft as the BigCorps show their true nature with the rounds of layoffs, mandatory RTO, cutbacks in perks, etc.
Why spend a single moment of your time doing unpaid hours doing free work for these people?
I've personally gone back to putting my (modest and used by nobody, to be fair) projects under GPLv3.
- enriquto 3y ago> I've personally gone back to putting my (modest and used by nobody, to be fair) projects under GPLv3. Consider using the AGPL. Your users will be better protected by that. (If they use your software via third-party server, the middlemen cannot forbid your users to access and modify your source code.)
- sokoloff 3y agoIf you think “your users” could include those middlemen, GPL might provide that subset of your users more useful/usable rights. There are reasons for all three of GPL, LGPL, and AGPL to exist. No one of them is best for all circumstances of software.
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoTo me it's a balance of things. If I want to ever take external contributions, it's even harder with AGPL. So GPLv3 is sort of the compromise. The stuff I write isn't likely to be used by anybody who isn't "weird" and nerdy anyways so I don't fear theft from SaaS right now.
- NavinF 3y agoIn practice AGPL is treated like a source-available license, not an open-source license. Most devs keep their distance from it
- palata 3y agoAgreed. I don't really get why some employees push for permissive licenses. As an employee, my code belongs to my company, not to me. If I somehow have to depend on e.g. a GPLv2 project, then suddenly my code gets higher chances of getting public, which is better for me as an employee. Say my company allows me to open source my code, then copyleft is (again) better for me as an employee, because I force other companies (those who would use my code) to publish more of their code.
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoI don't really get why some employees push for permissive licenses It makes sense if you consider that for many people their projects are kind of like a resume or a branding situation. "Owning" a project or framework is like building up a portfolio. And for some GitHub is as much a social network as it is a utility. I was definitely in this mindset after I left my long-term job and needed to hunt for work, and I understand the motives in a sense. If you have your stuff under permissive license, more people will use it, and your own "brand" is bettered. But I think in the long run it's not great.