2 ms·

The main downside with GPL licenses, from the perspective of corporations, is the requirement to share your changes if you distribute the code. GPL v3 and AGPL

The main downside with GPL licenses, from the perspective of corporations, is the requirement to share your changes if you distribute the code. GPL v3 and AGPL were both designed to close loopholes that were useful for certain corporations that didn't want to open source their own code. I believe the main ones were "Tivoization" (devices where you can't run modified code due to DRM) and cloud SaaS services where modified GPL code is run without sharing the changes because technically the cloud is not "distribution". GPL v3 was designed to stop the former and AGPL to stop the latter. FAANG companies generally hate AGPL and ban the use of code licensed under it which is a backdoor way of admitting that their cloud platforms include modified GPL code whose changes are not publicly available. The permissive licenses like MIT and BSD allow corporations to take your code and modify it without paying you or even sharing the changes with you. All they have to do is give you credit. That's not something any sane corporate lawyer is going to care about. Both of these types of licenses permit commercial use without paying the people who wrote the code and the entire FOSS community rejects non-commercial licenses as "not open source" at all. Corporations only object to GPL because it prevents them from taking other people's work, modifying it, distributing it and profiting from it without sharing their changes. That can reduce corporate profits by allowing competitors to build derivative works off of the same code. Personally, I'd prefer if there was a major non-commercial license for code because that would ensure nobody is profiteering off of my work without paying me. People who aren't in this line of work find it strange when you explain to them that somebody could write a portion of a highly successful product and never see a cent in royalties from it.

GuB-42 3y ago
> I'd prefer if there was a major non-commercial license for code Non-commercial licenses are considered non-free. If you intend to be share your code with the world and don't want others to profit on your work without giving anything in return, go with something like (A)GPL. Sure, people will be able to profit on your work, but in return, you get all their bug fixes, testing, support, and improvements. You have to realize that most contributions to GPL software is made by people who work for money, something that a non-commercial license would not let them do. So by releasing your software with such a license, you prevent the best people from eventually contributing. And why would you open source your software if not to take advantage of the contribution of others (in code or otherwise)? Another reason why you would want to publish your software under GPL (or compatible) is to make use of other GPL (or compatible) software and libraries, you can't do that if you publish under a non-commercial license. So, lots of drawbacks, few advantages. If you really insist on using a non-commercial license, there are a few listed here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwa...
- kelnos 3y ago
  > And why would you open source your software if not to take advantage of the contribution of others (in code or otherwise)? Because some people do things for different reasons than you might? I'm not the person you're replying to, and usually use GPL for things that I care about, and BSD 3-clause for things where I don't care so much. But I can see the appeal of a non-commercial license, about only allowing something for personal (or, say, non-profit) use, and refusing to allow anyone to profit monetarily off your work. It's fine if you don't want to use something like that, but I think it's unfair to cast aspersions on the concept.

GuB-42 3y ago

> I'd prefer if there was a major non-commercial license for code Non-commercial licenses are considered non-free. If you intend to be share your code with the world and don't want others to profit on your work without giving anything in return, go with something like (A)GPL. Sure, people will be able to profit on your work, but in return, you get all their bug fixes, testing, support, and improvements. You have to realize that most contributions to GPL software is made by people who work for money, something that a non-commercial license would not let them do. So by releasing your software with such a license, you prevent the best people from eventually contributing. And why would you open source your software if not to take advantage of the contribution of others (in code or otherwise)? Another reason why you would want to publish your software under GPL (or compatible) is to make use of other GPL (or compatible) software and libraries, you can't do that if you publish under a non-commercial license. So, lots of drawbacks, few advantages. If you really insist on using a non-commercial license, there are a few listed here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwa...

kelnos 3y ago
> And why would you open source your software if not to take advantage of the contribution of others (in code or otherwise)? Because some people do things for different reasons than you might? I'm not the person you're replying to, and usually use GPL for things that I care about, and BSD 3-clause for things where I don't care so much. But I can see the appeal of a non-commercial license, about only allowing something for personal (or, say, non-profit) use, and refusing to allow anyone to profit monetarily off your work. It's fine if you don't want to use something like that, but I think it's unfair to cast aspersions on the concept.