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 a day 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 a day 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.

▲

limagnolia 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah? I'm not sure what you thought I was confused about, but I am well aware of that.

	▲	globular-toast 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, you honestly seem quite confused about the whole thing. It sounds like you've been put off GPL at some point but haven't actually grasped the issues surrounding it and therefore cannot rationalise your beliefs in any way. Companies like Microsoft with huge marketing departments hate the GPL because they don't like their users to be free. It's part of their business strategy to keep people locked in. That alone should tell you it's probably not for for you. Sadly you seem to have been taken by their bs, though.

▲

poulpy123 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Default for people who want their open source work to stay open source and not privatized by billionaire companies.

	▲	limagnolia 17 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Once you release something under an OSS license, it is OSS- billion dollar companies can't un-open source your code.
	▲	jodrellblank a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		SaaS is how billionaire companies privatize and profit from GPL software. (Alternately, Google for people trying to get the full sourcecode to their Android phones from Samsung and see how difficult it can be).

▲

stavros a day 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 a day 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.

	▲	stavros a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah that's what I want, corporations to be unable to close my software behind a network and improve it without releasing the improvements.

▲

limagnolia 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is great, but others have other goals. The AGPL doesn't need to be "the default".

▲

dmantis a day ago | parent | prev [-]

AGPL doesn't prohibit commercial usage. The vendor just need to provide the sources for the service.

▲

js8 a day 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 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The people choosing the MIT/BSD license and the people complaining about for-profit use are not the people.