2 ms·
> The refusal of "FOSS" communities to use a direct non-commercial clause is an entirely self-inflicted wound. The self-inflicted wound is non-copyleft license
by Qem 2y ago
> The refusal of "FOSS" communities to use a direct non-commercial clause is an entirely self-inflicted wound.
The self-inflicted wound is non-copyleft licenses. Under copyleft you pay for free code with more code, by making freely available any modifications you publish over the original. Permissive licenses break this, causing a self-inflicted wound. Corporations can just build upon your codebase and privatize your base effort, giving just the middle finger back to community.
- ADeerAppeared 2y ago> Under copyleft you pay for free code with more code You do not. There is nothing in the GPL that mandates you contribute. You can simply use the software as-is, and never contribute. Sit on your hands when there's a major exploit and wait until someone else fixes it, then take their fix. It is, in fact, piss easy to get around the GPL because it only applies to distribution. If you SaaS or simply do not distribute the software, you can do whatever you want. You can dynamic link all day against evil proprietary software so long as you make the user download the GPL'd bit from a third party. And this is obvious to all because the AGPL exists to fix this, but is an even worse shitshow. > Corporations can just build upon your codebase and privatize your base effort, giving just the middle finger back to community. And the humble non-commercial clause trivially resolves this while the copyleft licenses have spent decades trying and failing.