I’m a very much pro free software person and I used to think that GPL is basically the only possible option when it comes to benefits for free software (and not commercial use), but I’ve recently realised this question is actually much more ambiguous.
I think there are two sides to this issue:
- GPL forces all contributions to stay open-source which prevents commercialisation* of FOSS projects, but also causes possible interference of corporate software design philosophy and all kinds of commercial decisions, if contributions come from companies.
- MIT-like permissive licenses, on the other hand, easily allow for making proprietary forks, which, however, separates commercial work from the rest of the project, therefore making the project more likely to stay free both of corporate influence and in general.
So it boils down to the fact, that in my opinion what makes free software free is not only the way it’s distributed but also the whole philosophy behind it: centralisation vs. decentralisation, passive consumer vs. co-developper role of the user etc. And this is where things start to be a bit controversial.
What do you think?
*UPD: wrong word. I mean close-sourcing and turning into a profitable product instead of something that fulfils your needs
Actual copyleft licenses like the GPL are analogous to leftists (the name might be a clue); they actually care about protecting the rights of the little guy.
“Permissive” licenses are analogous to liberals and/or ancaps. Arguably better than the corps/fascists, but willing to compromise with them to the point that most of their moral high ground erodes.
I get your point, but what I’m talking about is actually moving away from corps in a way even more than GPL by keeping their contributions away from FOSS projects (as corps usually have no interest in open sourcing them)