238
Is the FOSS world in danger of a corporate takeover, thanks to pushover licenses? (lemmy.world)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
95 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

GPL has been battle tested in court

Well... parts of it have been. Others have not. Notably the FSFs view on whether or not linking to a GPL-licensed library constitutes a derivative work (and triggers the GPLs virality) is not universally shared by legal scholars. In the EU in particular linking does not necessarily create derivative works, despite what the FSF says. This has not been tested in court.

Some other parts like the v3 anti-tivoization hasn't gone to court either, but that has lesser ramifications (assuming you're not TiVo).

THAT'S how we have corporations profiting from GPL. Not because GPL allows anyone to use it.

What distinction are you trying to draw here exactly? They can do it precisely because the GPL (v2) allows it. The GPLv3 has some extra restrictions but doesn't do anything about closed source drivers (beyond the linking thing) or the Google Play Services type of proprietary extensions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent