• BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is why I love FOSS products. You get the advantage of using well engineered code, without the risk of that code falling into the hands of exploitive capitalists.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 months ago

      Permissively-licensed stuff (e.g. MIT, BSD) still has that risk. What you really want is copyleft (e.g. GPL) specifically, not just FOSS.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        You can change the license at any point. You just can’t make people change the license of past copies

          • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            gpl does not prevent the owner from changing the licence later. (Unless it is also making use of someone else’s gpl components.)

            For example, Qt has a free version which is under the GPL; and a paid version which is not. So if you were making software with Qt, if you were using the free version, you’d be compelled to also release your product under GPL. But you could then later switch to a paid subscription and rerelease under some other licience if you wanted to.

            • Blisterexe@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              doesnt it require any modified versions of the code be shared, preventing a change to a non-copyleft liscence?

              • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                Not if the copyright owner changes the license. When you are the creator you can do what you please. With that being said you can not do that if the public writes code. That’s why you see CLAs (contributor license agreement)

                • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Important to note that this only applies to future releases by the legal copyright owner. If the community doesn’t like it (and they often don’t), someone else can fork it from the last time it was GPL, and contributors can abandon the original codebase in favor of the GPL fork. As a result, it is extremely unwise to try to de-GPL software with a lot of contributors, as the copyright holder doesn’t have a great chance at competing with a fork if contributors jump ship.

                  Linus Torvalds could legally pivot Linux to a proprietary license if he wanted to, but we’d probably see it replaced with a fork called “Binix” or something within a few months, and he’d be in charge of abandonware at that point.

                  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Agreed although Linux would be really hard to relicense. You would need to get approval from every single person who every contributed