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
GPL because abstract freedoms are meaningless. The goal should be to ensure that the code stays open and that corps aren’t freeloading of it.
Well, for me personally the way the software is developped and designed is not something abstract. Centralisation and bloating, for example, makes understanding and developping software a significant amount more difficult which puts you in a more passive role and so making you much less free
Centralization, bloating, and GPL are all orthogonal concepts that bear no direct relation to each other. A centralized project does not necessarily become bloated, nor does GPL play any role in whether a project is centralized or not.
There’s no direct relation, yes, but centralisation and bloating are both things commercial software development tends to because of the nature of developper-consumer relations. And GPL forces companies to contribute their code which is often based on those principles back to the original project. So I think there is indirect relation.
No, GPL does not force companies to do that. It forces companies to make their source code available. There is zero requirement that it has to be contributed to the original project, nor do the maintainers of the project have to accept changes they don’t want. You’re completely misrepresenting the how GPL works here.
Okay maintainers don’t have to, but they usually end up doing so as those contributions are still valuable. The key point is that even though free software is called “free”, a huge chunk of it is going through the same process of “enshitification” as proprietary software, because of being developped by companies and being a part of this corporate, non-free world. So separating that from FOSS by letting companies keep their work by themselves seems to help a little bit.
I don’t think your argument makes sense logically. Are you saying that copyleft software is enshitififying because big companies are pushing too many (optional) contributions? Are you aware that software maintainers don’t have to merge the contributions these people are pushing? With MIT like software contributers don’t even have the option to merge or not to merge because these companies just make a proprietary fork.
Are you aware that software maintainers don’t have to merge the contributions these people are pushing?
Yes, I literally said that in the first line of the comment you’re replying to.
Are you saying that copyleft software is enshitififying because big companies are pushing too many (optional) contributions?
Yes. I’m not saying that always happens, but I do believe many projects enshitified a good amount because a lot of their contributors have become big companies. Or sometimes companies make an entirely new project that is enshitified from the very beginning but still gets included in other FOSS projects. Both merging a contribution or including a project are optional, but since FOSS projects get involved in this whole producer-customer relations model, where everything is done centrally by the developer and served ready-to-use to passive consumers, merging those contributions kinda becomes an actual need of users. So yeah, if you dig deeper, it’s ultimately the very involvement in this commercial centralised production model and not just companies, that causes enshitification, but I still think that letting companies just fuck off and do their own centralised thing separately from decentralised DIY-like development which, to my mind, is actual freedom, might help.
