4 ms·

> While the original codebase is MIT, any changes here are GPLv3. What’s the argument on why to change to a less permissive license?

wmf 2y ago
Usually ideology. GNU/FSF people love switching software from permissive to copyleft.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
  All things strive
- account42 2y ago
  Not wanting to do free work for others that don't reciprocate is "ideology" now?
  - aja12 2y ago
    Of course. And it's fine? I'm a proponent of GPL for this reason, I see it as an ideology to which I subscribe, I don't see the problem?
  - gatlin 2y ago
    Yes.
glitchc 2y ago
Protection against corporate interests taking over the project in the future.
- pantalaimon 2y ago
  With that kind of project they should be happy for any kind of interest in the future.
IncRnd 2y ago
The answer to your question is in the next sentence, "While the original codebase is MIT, any changes here are GPLv3. Supporting closed devices with this code is not a goal."
rollcat 2y ago
That's the entire point of a permissive license. You grant other parties the right to do as they wish, given a very lax set of requirements (usually just attribution). Would you feel offended if someone only distributed a binary build with their changes, or even charge for that? That's literally what the permissive license is about. What may not be immediately obvious, is that it still favors the downstream developer to contribute their changes back; the network effect scales exponentially with the number of participants. Making the changes copyleft complicates the matter, as their copyright status may become less clear as further downstream contributors chip in. There's always some trade-off, but this is exactly what the MIT license permits. If it bothers you, you'd probably find yourself preferring copyleft anyway.
eddieh 2y ago
There’s no argument for the change in the general case. There’s rationalizations, sure. But no euphemisms like “public”, “free software”, “copyleft”, make the change anything less than taking away a freedom and calling it “free as in speech”.
- immibis 2y ago
  If you have the right to speak your mind and I have the right to blast an airhorn every time you open your mouth... ... and I actually do that ... ... do you actually have the right to speak? Maybe banning airhorns would increase speech rights.
  - eddieh 2y ago
    Actually, you don’t have that right. Most cities ban public nuisance noises such as blasting air horns. You’re mostly free to do things that do not harm others. If you don’t like my speaking you can and should just move along. Blasting an air horn is not only harming me it harms everyone around you. Whereby you are interfering with everyone else’s right to not have public nuisances. It isn’t remotely similar to what I’m saying anyway. The free software foundation has brainwashed y’all to think less freedom is more freedom. And yes, I will die on this hill. It isn’t my fault if you have an issue with objective reality.
knowitnone 2y ago
I think they want assistance with the project, not for corps to take it and build it without contributing back. It's why Linux has grown more feature/driver rich while others grow at a slower pace (no necessarily a bad thing).
bmacho 2y ago
The dude that worked on it prefers GPL over MIT.
Nab443 2y ago
Not less permissive, just targeting the end user instead of the developer rights.

wmf 2y ago

Usually ideology. GNU/FSF people love switching software from permissive to copyleft.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
All things strive
account42 2y ago
Not wanting to do free work for others that don't reciprocate is "ideology" now?
- aja12 2y ago
  Of course. And it's fine? I'm a proponent of GPL for this reason, I see it as an ideology to which I subscribe, I don't see the problem?
- gatlin 2y ago
  Yes.

glitchc 2y ago

Protection against corporate interests taking over the project in the future.

pantalaimon 2y ago
With that kind of project they should be happy for any kind of interest in the future.

IncRnd 2y ago

The answer to your question is in the next sentence, "While the original codebase is MIT, any changes here are GPLv3. Supporting closed devices with this code is not a goal."

rollcat 2y ago

That's the entire point of a permissive license. You grant other parties the right to do as they wish, given a very lax set of requirements (usually just attribution). Would you feel offended if someone only distributed a binary build with their changes, or even charge for that? That's literally what the permissive license is about. What may not be immediately obvious, is that it still favors the downstream developer to contribute their changes back; the network effect scales exponentially with the number of participants. Making the changes copyleft complicates the matter, as their copyright status may become less clear as further downstream contributors chip in. There's always some trade-off, but this is exactly what the MIT license permits. If it bothers you, you'd probably find yourself preferring copyleft anyway.

eddieh 2y ago

There’s no argument for the change in the general case. There’s rationalizations, sure. But no euphemisms like “public”, “free software”, “copyleft”, make the change anything less than taking away a freedom and calling it “free as in speech”.

immibis 2y ago
If you have the right to speak your mind and I have the right to blast an airhorn every time you open your mouth... ... and I actually do that ... ... do you actually have the right to speak? Maybe banning airhorns would increase speech rights.
- eddieh 2y ago
  Actually, you don’t have that right. Most cities ban public nuisance noises such as blasting air horns. You’re mostly free to do things that do not harm others. If you don’t like my speaking you can and should just move along. Blasting an air horn is not only harming me it harms everyone around you. Whereby you are interfering with everyone else’s right to not have public nuisances. It isn’t remotely similar to what I’m saying anyway. The free software foundation has brainwashed y’all to think less freedom is more freedom. And yes, I will die on this hill. It isn’t my fault if you have an issue with objective reality.

knowitnone 2y ago

I think they want assistance with the project, not for corps to take it and build it without contributing back. It's why Linux has grown more feature/driver rich while others grow at a slower pace (no necessarily a bad thing).

bmacho 2y ago

The dude that worked on it prefers GPL over MIT.

Nab443 2y ago

Not less permissive, just targeting the end user instead of the developer rights.