this post was submitted on 09 May 2022
9 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43855 readers
1724 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That can get expensive. If the companies could systematically subvert copyleft licenses; then they wouldn't have to bribe each creator for a license change.
OK. It's the 2020s and it's still relevant.
Permissive licensing is still flawed; because it allows companies to remove the freedoms set by the license and not contribute to the original project. The Amazon-Elastisearch scandal is a modern example of abusing permissive licenses.^[Amazon: NOT OK - why we had to change Elastic licensing]^[Amazon responds to Elastic changing its open-source software license, SDTimes]
If you want a time-relevant example, Microsoft's 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish' tactic preyed on noncopyleft programs by copying the standard and then adding proprietary features to lock people out of it.^[The Microsoft Monopoly, The Science Elf] Copyleft is designed to prevent this tactic from working.
Open-source is an irrelevant topic here. I am debating about copyleft licenses, not open-source licenses.