I ask this because I think of the recent switch of Ubuntu to the Rust recode of the GNU core utils, which use an MIT license. There are many Rust recodes of GPL software that re-license it as a pushover MIT or Apache licenses. I worry these relicensing efforts this will significantly harm the FOSS ecosystem. Is this reason to start worrying or is it not that bad?

IMO, if the FOSS world makes something public, with extensive liberties, then the only thing that should be asked in return is that people preserve these liberties, like the GPL successfully enforces. These pushover licenses preserve nothing.

  • MangoCats@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    without my consent or their assuredly begrudging reciprocation. This should not be controversial. The GPL accomplishes this

    In legal theory. In corporate practice, MIT and similar “pushover” licensed software, especially FOSS libraries, is more readily adopted by corporate users - and through this adoption it is exercised, tested, bug reported - sometimes the corporate trolls even crawl out from under their rocks and publish bug fixes and extensions for it. By comparison, GPL stuff is radioactive, therefore less used.

    Then we can talk about how successful you are likely to be in enforcing GPT on any large entity, particularly those in foreign countries.

    • biocoder.ronin@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      If it’s radioactive, that’s because of a fundamental assumptive imbalance in the contract between the author, the community, the users, the stakeholders, and the parasitic lawyers and their overlords.

      If they don’t like it, pay/license and/or contribute.

      • MangoCats@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        In the corporate world, they have a lot to lose. So, they have lawyers - expensive lawyers - who, in theory, protect them from expensive lawsuits. One of the easiest ways to stay out of lawsuits over GPL and friends is to not use GPL software, so… that’s why it’s radioactive. Just having the parasitic lawyers review possible exposure is hellishly expensive, better to re-develop in-house than pay lawyers or even begin to think about the implications of entering into an agreement with a bunch of radical FOSS types.

        It sucks, but it’s also how it is. Some corporations (like Intel) do heavily support and contribute to FOSS, when they feel like it.