| ▲ | Hendrikto 3 hours ago |
| > then some idealistic anti-capitalistic people have asked why they should contribute if the map can benefit corps, too ”We should respect freedoms and not restrict them arbitrarily… except when I do not like the people using those freedoms.“ It is always a weird take to me. Pick a license that matches your preferences, like the GPL. Do not pick MIT/whatever and then complain when corps make use of the freedoms you afforded them. |
|
| ▲ | basilikum 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| GPL should absolutely be the default choice for software. It is quite weird when people choose the MIT license and then complain when others use their open source software and turn it into a proprietary for profit software when the author explicitly allowed them to do this in the license. The MIT is really not long. People should read it before using it. But you can also take a noncommercial GPL software, slightly modify and put your logo and name on it, do some marketing and get cash out of it without contributing anything significant. You just can't make it proprietary. But it's still an unfair situation. |
| |
| ▲ | limagnolia 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why should the GPL be the default? If you don't want your software used commercially, don't Open Source (or Free Software) it. Maybe a CC-NC license if you want to give it away for noncommercial use. The rest of us will continue to use and make OSS and enjoy it without worrying about what others are doing with it. | | |
| ▲ | globular-toast 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The GPL has nothing to do with usage and what others are doing with it. On the contrary: it explicitly provides the freedom to use the software as you wish, including for commercial use. Even Stallman is against licences that would prohibit commercial use. But the GPL goes even further than that, and this appears to be the source of your confusion. The GPL stops people redistributing the software under terms that would restrict or prohibit use, including commercial use. The GPL guarantees that anyone receiving the software now or in the future has the same rights you have. | |
| ▲ | poulpy123 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Default for people who want their open source work to stay open source and not privatized by billionaire companies. | |
| ▲ | stavros an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because I want to open source my software AND don't want it used commercially. What's the problem? I just use the AGPL and that's that. | | |
| ▲ | basilikum 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The AGPL does not prevent commercial neither as a user nor as a publisher of the software. It even prevents anyone from creating a derivative work from your software and publishing it under a license that prohibits commercial use. Someone can absolutely fork your software and use it commercially. That's what FOSS is about: You shall not limit what other people can do with the software. You may however restrict others from putting restrictions on derivative works of your software. That's what the GPL is all about. You enforce reciprocity and ensure that all works based on your software allow the user the essential freedoms of free software. | |
| ▲ | dmantis 11 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | AGPL doesn't prohibit commercial usage. The vendor just need to provide the sources for the service. |
|
| |
| ▲ | js8 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I agree but the reality is most authors want to use their OSS creations at work, which usually means they will make a compromise with capitalists who reject copyleft licenses. Many human problems could be solved if humans were less willing to compromise with greedy people, but unfortunately authors are too nice in general to do that. | |
| ▲ | thesuitonym 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The people choosing the MIT/BSD license and the people complaining about for-profit use are not the people. |
|
|
| ▲ | Doctor_Fegg 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You're more or less right. OSM (via an exhaustive licence change process) did indeed choose the licence that matched its preferences, and almost all contributors are happy that it allows commercial use. What does stick in the craw with many of us, however, is that Meta, Mapbox, and various other bigcos have nonetheless decided to disregard the attribution requirements of what is a fairly permissive licence, simply because they're sufficiently big that they can say to the OSM Foundation (annual turnover about £3.27) "suck it, we dare you to sue us". |
|
| ▲ | icantevenhold 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Tolerating the intolerant will erode the very basis that enables you to be tolerant. It’s the same thing with freedoms |
|
| ▲ | singpolyma3 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| TBF corps can use and profit from GPL and AGPL stuff just fine, even if they comply with the license (though they usually just don't bother) |
|
| ▲ | account42 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Yeah and the soup kitchen has no right to complain that I packaged up all their food and sold it next door. Clearly they should have made everyone sign a contract before getting any food if they didn't want that. |
| |
