Crumb
c/linux · by cm0002@libretechni.ca · 265d

Is the FOSS world in danger of a corporate takeover, thanks to pushover licenses?

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.

OQB @ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world

88 points · 17 comments · view on lemmy.world

17 Comments

markz@suppo.fi · 39 pts · 265d (5 replies)

"Pushover license" is a pretty descriptive way to call it. I've seen quite a few dumb takes on coreutils that focus on the "Rust rewrite" part and not "MIT-licensed rewrite". Pushover licenses have a place, but to me the goal here is pretty transparent and I don't like it.

HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 10 pts · 265d (4 replies)

I like permissive licenses for libraries, that way you leave room for corporate collaborators, however, all my binaries and end user apps are copy left.

Womble@piefed.world · 5 pts · 264d (3 replies)

Even then, LGPL exists, I wish more libraries would use it rather than going for MIT/BSD licences.

HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -1 pts · 264d (2 replies)

Rust libraries are linked statically and aren't replaced easily after compilation, this makes lgpl libraries very hard to use in proprietary code. I don't think what the best action is in this case... I should probably start using lgpl.

Womble@piefed.world · 4 pts · 264d (1 reply)

I'm not an expert on licences by any means, but my understanding was that LGPL explicitly allows you to link it to other binaries without needing to licence them with the same licence. Does rust really only support static linking and not dynamic?

Per the Gnu wiki:

Does the LGPL have different requirements for statically vs dynamically linked modules with a covered work? (#LGPLStaticVsDynamic)

For the purpose of complying with the LGPL (any extant version: v2, v2.1 or v3):

   (1) If you statically link against an LGPLed library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application.  

   (2) If you dynamically link against an LGPLed library already present on the user's computer, you need not convey the library's source. On the other hand, if you yourself convey the executable LGPLed library along with your application, whether linked with statically or dynamically, you must also convey the library's sources, in one of the ways for which the LGPL provides.

So as long as you also provide your application with an LGPL library shaped hole you can release a static-linked binary with LGPL components.

HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 264d

That was what I was trying to communicate with my comment. It's very difficult to provide the compile objects in rust, and dynamic linking deprives you of many of the benefits of using rust.

It introduces friction if you don't want to open source your code. This friction will drive away many users. I want people to use my code, even in commercial products, so providing libraries in Apache or MIT just makes more sense for that goal. If you have another goal lgpl might be more inline.

Snarwin@fedia.io · 29 pts · 265d

This isn't a recent development; it's been going on for decades. Indeed, most of the reason we use the terms "FOSS" and "open source" instead of the original term—"free software"—is that "open source" was deemed more corporate-friendly.

Jumuta@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 265d

it does concern me a lot that both uutils and ladybird use permissive licenses

onlinepersona@programming.dev · 12 pts · 265d

Corporate loves it! Free, unpaid work means no opensource spirit can stop them in court. Pushover license is a perfect name for it.

refalo@programming.dev · 12 pts · 265d (6 replies)

Open source is the very worst thing currently going on because it is so incredibly exploitative, it's far more exploitative than any actual company is of the workers who work at the company.

Even the people who are getting paid in open source are getting massively underpaid to do it compared to how much the people who are using their code are making, it's nothing compared to the power that is accreted by the people who have co-opted that work thanks to the open source model. And then mark zuckerberg gets to define how the internet works despite having paid for almost none of the software that his company actually needed to make that work.

It's like feudalism or serfdom, these people did the work and got nothing for it. It's like you took the worst aspects of capitalism for workers and the worst aspects of socialism for workers and put them together, that's open source. You get no power and you get no money.

It's exploitative whether the people chose to be exploited, just because someone chooses to let you exploit them does not mean that you didn't exploit them. And for the record that's how most exploitation works; convincing people to do something that turns out to be very bad for them and very good for you, and that's exactly what the open source movement has turned out to be.

I really don't see the "we post stuff on github under a gpl2 or lgpl or apache or mit license", all that is to me now is just exploitation. You can say that there's solutions but until someone demonstrates that those solutions work, it's the standard "real communism has never been tried" argument. AGPL is the only thing that I've seen so far that's an attempt to fix these fundamentally unfair compensation practices.

Sanctus@anarchist.nexus · 9 pts · 265d (5 replies)

Imagine having to pay for each library your computer uses. We'd just as soon stop using computers than do that.

ulterno@programming.dev · 16 pts · 265d (4 replies)

Imagine paying for Windows

I used an Open Source library for work.
I asked my company to consider donating to them.
Nothing...

They'd rather pay for MS Teams even when it doesn't work reliably.
I offered to help with setting up a WebRTC server.
Nothing...

The only ones actually caring about donating to FOSS projects are a few of the developers, that realise the effort that goes into it and also have enough money to spare.

refalo@programming.dev · 2 pts · 264d (3 replies)

I wonder if a dual-licensed non-commercial + paid commercial approach could work, but from my experience with FOSS developers, they tend to view non-commercial licenses as sacrilege...

ulterno@programming.dev · 1 pts · 263d (2 replies)

Well yeah, that's not really FOSS, right?

refalo@programming.dev · 1 pts · 262d (1 reply)

In their eyes, probably not... but you can't have it both ways. Either you let companies take advantage of you, or you don't...

ulterno@programming.dev · 0 pts · 262d

From what I see, there's not much that can be done over here.
You either use GPL Licensing and then look for other ways to get money (because only FOSS people will pay you when they don't have to and there aren't many of them, as compared to the population) or you use a non-FOSS license and eventually get bought by a corporate entity to get money, then get your project enshittified.

Of course, you can say that you won't do that, but after how many of them have gone back on similar claims, it can be hard to get others to trust you.
Also, if (when) your project starts getting in the way of large corporations and their money and they realise you don't sellout, you can expect them to start coming after your livelihood. And how many people do you think, would play chicken with them?

ISO@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 265d

It is guaranteed those who talk about this have ZERO clue about the licenses of the software they directly use, or have been always installed on their systems.