Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

With GPL, you're programming Freedom. With MIT, you're programming for free.

Context:

Permissive licenses (commonly referred to as "cuck licenses") like the MIT license allow others to modify your software and release it under an unfree license. Copyleft licenses (like the Gnu General Public License) mandate that all derivative works remain free.

Andrew Tanenbaum developed MINIX, a modular operating system kernel. Intel went ahead and used it to build Management Engine, arguably one of the most widespread and invasive pieces of malware in the world, without even as much as telling him. There's nothing Tanenbaum could do, since the MIT license allows this.

Erik Andersen is one of the developers of Busybox, a minimal implementation of that's suited for embedded systems. Many companies tried to steal his code and distribute it with their unfree products, but since it's protected under the GPL, Busybox developers were able to sue them and gain some money in the process.

Interestingly enough, Tanenbaum doesn't seem to mind what intel did. But there are some examples out there of people regretting releasing their work under a permissive license.

rottingleaf ,

TIL openssh, xorg, apache, nginx, all of *bsds are cuck-licensed.

While GPL-licensed linux, used by every corp out there, is not.

but since it’s protected under the GPL, Busybox developers were able to sue them and gain some money in the process.

Don't need to steal anything. Lots of today's usage doesn't involve giving a binary to the customer. Thus Google, FB and who else don't have to share any of their internal changes to Linux.

widw , (edited )

Controversial opinion: Copyleft is actually more free than permissive licenses.

Because the way the GPL works is how the world would be if there were no licenses and no copyright at all. Because then anything made public is free to use. And if I were to reverse-engineer a binary then I could still add that code to my software.

But since we live in a world where we play make-believe that you can make something public and still "own it" at the same time (e.g. copyright) and where using reverse-engineered code can still get you into legal trouble, the GPL is using their own silly logic against them (like fighting fire with fire) to create a bubble of software that acts like a world without any licenses.

Permissive licenses don't do that, they allow your open software to just get repurposed under a non-free paradigm which could never occur in a world with no licenses.
And so ironically permissive licensing in a world that is (artifically) non-permissive by default does not reflect a world with no licenses, and is thus less free than Copyleft.

grrgyle ,
@grrgyle@slrpnk.net avatar

Well you've convinced me. I always thought copyleft sounded cool, but never thought of it in this way of more/less free

woelkchen ,
@woelkchen@lemmy.world avatar

And if I were to reverse-engineer a binary then I could still add that code to my software.

That's actually an important factor for ancient software whose source code was lost. A developer could, for example, declare all their old Atari 2600 games to be under GPL by just announcing it in their news blog. Collectors could then hunt for the binary files and decompile them. Decompiled software is still a derivative work, so that source code would still be under GPL. Sadly I'm just aware of one case from years ago where I can't even remember the specifics who and which software it was but he was like "I found some floppy disks from the 1980s, I lost the source code but binaries under GPL, so have fun".

woelkchen ,
@woelkchen@lemmy.world avatar

Interestingly enough, Tanenbaum doesn’t seem to mind what intel did.

Yeah, duh. Intelligent people read licenses before they pick one.

But there are some examples out there of people regretting releasing their work under a permissive license.

That's like signing a contract before reading it and then complaining that it contains provisions that surprise you when they are enacted. I'm baffled on a regular basis by how many people understand FOSS licenses only on the basis for hearsay, for example when people insist that GPLed source code must be made available free of charge for everyone. The GNU project has a FAQ about the GPL that spells it out that this is not the case and yet hardly anyone discussing FOSS licenses has even read the FAQ.

HappyFrog ,

I find MIT to be good for libraries as you can get companies using it and working on it. However, apps and binaries should be copyleft to not get fucked over.

douglasg14b ,
@douglasg14b@lemmy.world avatar

This is what LGPL is for.

You can still use a library like a library freely, without restriction, but you are keeping your IP protected from being copied cloned and modified elsewhere.

nUbee ,

When I think of Copyleft licenses, I just think of it as "Use this program as you see fit, but if you share/redistribute it, you may not add any restrictions to it."

I don't understand why there are communities that hate GPL so much. It is such a powerful license that practically guarantees that the program will be free for any who wants it, it just won't allow someone to add restrictions to it.

I've heard arguments against the GPL like: "It's too restrictive!" Only if you want your program to be muddled with any kind of program that doesn't respect freedom. Saying the GPL is too restrictive to developers is like saying the 13th amendment of the US Constitution is too restrictive to slave owners.

douglasg14b ,
@douglasg14b@lemmy.world avatar

I'm going to guess because of the tools that don't use LGPL.

Which makes them quite limiting and kind of controversial since you have to adopt their license from my understanding, even if used as a library.

I try and use LGPL on all my projects since it allows others to use the Library as a library, and anyone that wants to modify or use the source has to copy left.

MystikIncarnate ,

I've seen busybox in a lot of software that's not free. One notable example is VMware. It runs on top of esxi as a package to provide command line functions to VMware hosts.

I'm pretty sure (IDK, I don't do development for vmw) that it's running on top of VMware's kernel, and they have binaries that you execute from busybox that interface with the vmkernel to accomplish things.

I don't have all the details and I'm far from an operating system guru/developer/whatever. I think that's permissible under copyleft, since they're not running things that you paid for on top of busybox, but I have no idea. I'm also not a lawyer, but they've been doing it forever, as far as I know.

Does anyone know more about it? I'm just surprised that smaller fish have fried for infringement, but someone like VMware is shipping busybox without reprocussions.

Maybe it's not busybox? Maybe it's something that just looks and acts like busybox? Idk.

nomadjoanne ,

Tannenbaum is fucking asshole. Isn't he the idiot that told Torvalds "you certainly would have failed my class if you submitted your OS as a final project?"

The guy deserves no respect.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • linuxmemes@lemmy.world
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines