Context:

Permissive licenses (commonly referred to as “cuck licenses”) like the MIT license allow others to modify your software and release it under an unfree license. Copyleft licenses (like the Gnu General Public License) mandate that all derivative works remain free.

Andrew Tanenbaum developed MINIX, a modular operating system kernel. Intel went ahead and used it to build Management Engine, arguably one of the most widespread and invasive pieces of malware in the world, without even as much as telling him. There’s nothing Tanenbaum could do, since the MIT license allows this.

Erik Andersen is one of the developers of Busybox, a minimal implementation of that’s suited for embedded systems. Many companies tried to steal his code and distribute it with their unfree products, but since it’s protected under the GPL, Busybox developers were able to sue them and gain some money in the process.

Interestingly enough, Tanenbaum doesn’t seem to mind what intel did. But there are some examples out there of people regretting releasing their work under a permissive license.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2151 year ago

    Permissive licenses (commonly referred to as “cuck licenses”)

    That’s where I stopped reading. 👎

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      451 year ago

      Yeah I don’t think I’ve ever heard that term before in my life and I’ve been doing this for a while.

      And I don’t think I ever wanna hear it again.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          81 year ago

          The joke in the OP stops at the beginning of the joke explanation. If you just share your honest opinion like that in a shitposting community, you can’t expect everyone to “play along” with your “joke”.

  • Possibly linux
    link
    fedilink
    English
    201 year ago

    The MIT is still a free software license. It is completely valid to use it from a Foss perspective.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    501 year ago

    Are we really going to start this pointless discussion again? They are two licenses with different use cases and different considerations. GPL has a lot more mental overhead to using it, MIT is hands off, both of these aren’t inherently invalid.

    Also Tanenbaum in your own link mentions that Intel probably would have just written their own microkernel if need be.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      I agree that permissive licenses have their place for smaller projects (I personally use CC0 from small programs). The FSF suggests Apache license for programs with less than 300 lines (approximately) in order to avoid the overhead that you mentioned. The LGPL was also created in cases where allowing your free code to be used in nonfree contexts can help advance free software as a movement (e.g. writing a free replacement for a proprietary codec). But I also believe that if you really want to support free software, you have a moral duty to release anything “big” that you make under a copyleft license.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    71 year ago

    I support MIT because I believe that’s how all software should be

    Everyone builds upon each other

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      I mean, essentially, the GPL just obligates someone borrowing from you to keep doing things “how it should be”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah but I don’t really care if someone takes it to sell, it creates an endpoint branch but someone else will create a growing branch

        One assumes even an endpoint will pass things upstream

  • pelya
    link
    fedilink
    131 year ago

    Busybox was quickly replaced by BSD-licensed Toybox everywhere for that exact reason.

    Copyleft licenses (like the Gnu General Public License) mandate that all derivative works remain free.

    This is false. It’s perfectly legal to take GPL-licensed work, modify it, and sell it. As long as the work itself does not reach the general public, you don’t need to release it’s source code to the public (e.g. your work for the military, you take money for your work, and provide source code to them, but not release it publicly).

      • pelya
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        It’s false that you cannot sell GPL-licensed work.

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        141 year ago

        I think the confusion here is selling software vs distributing source code. Free software can be sold, as long as you provide the source code and don’t try to stop others from redistributing copies for free. The busybox GPL lawsuits were about companies that redistributed busybox (or software built on top of busybox) without providing the source code. Whether or not they charged money for it isn’t relevant.

    • optional
      link
      fedilink
      221 year ago

      Interesting point for the military: If you build a rocket that contains GPL software, and shoot the rocket towards your enemy, you are obliged to send another rocket containing the source code.

  • алсааас [she/they]
    link
    fedilink
    51 year ago

    I’ve taken up saying “temporarily free/libre” and “permanently free/libre” instead of the permissive/copyleft, since imo “permissive” has a suggestive positive connotation. Especially to ppl who do not know much about the free software movement

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      Temporarily free gives the idea that the code will stop being free at some point and may cause misunderstandings. It would be better to use nonreciprocal.

      • алсааас [she/they]
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        It will stop being free the second a corporation gets it’s hands on it, makes improvements and put’s those under a proprietary license

        • cqst [she/her]
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, but the originally free/libre licensed source code is still out there.

          makes improvements and put’s those under a proprietary license

          You could also make improvements and release them under a GPL license.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Temporarily free gives the idea that the code will stop being free at some point

        Because it absolutely can and most of the times does.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          The original code never stops being free, but the code incorporated into a new project will be, so it’s a misleading term to people unfamiliar with open source licensing, that may think the license somehow expires. Even the fsf doesn’t use such terminology. They use reciprocal and nonreciprocal, because it translates the idea that gpl-like licenses create a relationship of reciprocity, and bsd-like ones create a relationship of non reciprocity.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    141 year ago

    Interestingly enough, Tanenbaum doesn’t seem to mind what intel did.

    Yeah, duh. Intelligent people read licenses before they pick one.

    But there are some examples out there of people regretting releasing their work under a permissive license.

    That’s like signing a contract before reading it and then complaining that it contains provisions that surprise you when they are enacted. I’m baffled on a regular basis by how many people understand FOSS licenses only on the basis for hearsay, for example when people insist that GPLed source code must be made available free of charge for everyone. The GNU project has a FAQ about the GPL that spells it out that this is not the case and yet hardly anyone discussing FOSS licenses has even read the FAQ.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    TIL openssh, xorg, apache, nginx, all of *bsds are cuck-licensed.

    While GPL-licensed linux, used by every corp out there, is not.

    but since it’s protected under the GPL, Busybox developers were able to sue them and gain some money in the process.

    Don’t need to steal anything. Lots of today’s usage doesn’t involve giving a binary to the customer. Thus Google, FB and who else don’t have to share any of their internal changes to Linux.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    I’ve seen busybox in a lot of software that’s not free. One notable example is VMware. It runs on top of esxi as a package to provide command line functions to VMware hosts.

    I’m pretty sure (IDK, I don’t do development for vmw) that it’s running on top of VMware’s kernel, and they have binaries that you execute from busybox that interface with the vmkernel to accomplish things.

    I don’t have all the details and I’m far from an operating system guru/developer/whatever. I think that’s permissible under copyleft, since they’re not running things that you paid for on top of busybox, but I have no idea. I’m also not a lawyer, but they’ve been doing it forever, as far as I know.

    Does anyone know more about it? I’m just surprised that smaller fish have fried for infringement, but someone like VMware is shipping busybox without reprocussions.

    Maybe it’s not busybox? Maybe it’s something that just looks and acts like busybox? Idk.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    95
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There’s nothing Tanenbaum could do

    Tanenbaum doesn’t seem to mind

    Today OP was very dumb and showed his ignorance of the concept “I do whatever I fucking want.” Don’t be like OP.

    people regretting releasing their work under a permissive license

    They’re free to change the licence of future versions. OP also failed at understanding the concept of licences. He’s such a silly moron!

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      231 year ago

      They’re free to change the licence of future versions.

      Why do you act like I don’t know that? The issue here is that once you realize that the license you chose does not reflect your intentions, the damage has likely already been done. From the article I linked:

      I didn’t have the foresight to see this coming. I didn’t think people so lacked in the spirit of open source. I wanted to promote community contributions, not to have them monetized by other people who don’t even provide the source to their modifications. I wanted to grow the tools as a community, not have closed source forks of them overtake my own open source versions.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      341 year ago

      They’re free to change the licence of future versions.

      Only if they are still the only contributor. Once you have more contributors, it gets far tougher to change the licence.

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        121 year ago

        How does it work with contributors? Does absolutely everyone have to consent to having the license changed? If one of the contributors doesn’t consent, can the maintainer “cut out” their contributions into a separate program and redistribute it as a plugin with the original license?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          121 year ago

          You can keep all the lines of those who didn’t accept to the change with the original license, it will end up as a bad mix, but it’s doable if the licenses are compatible

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Does absolutely everyone have to consent to having the license changed?

          Very minor changes (like fixing typos in comments) aren’t copyrightable, so these changes don’t require approval. When LibreOffice was relicensed, IIRC they they had some cutoff regarding lines of code.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        121 year ago

        Pretty sure that with a permissive license you can just change the license of future versions as you want. Ex. v1 MIT license with thousanda.of contributors, v2 Commercial license with contributions from anyone who agrees to contribute to the new version and license. (Anyone can fork v1 and start their own licensed project)

    • Andromxda 🇺🇦🇵🇸🇹🇼
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      The MIT license guarantees freedom for developers proprietary software conglomerates to use FOSS code in their proprietary products. The GPL guarantees freedom for end users the entire FOSS community, both for users and developers.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      981 year ago

      The MIT license guarantees that businesses will use it because it’s free and they don’t have to think about releasing code or hiding their copyright infringement. The developers I’ve seen using that license, or at least those who put some thought into it, did do because they want companies to use it and therefore boost their credibility through use and bug reports, etc. They knowingly did free work for a bunch of companies as a way to build their CV, basically. Like your very own self-imposed unpaid internship.

      The GPL license is also good for developers, as they know they can work on a substantial project and have some protections against others creating closed derived works off of it. It’s just a bit more difficult to get enterprise buy-in, which is not a bad thing for many projects.

      • v_krishna
        link
        fedilink
        English
        191 year ago

        All my own OSS stuff I always release MIT licensed because I want to be able to use the libraries in my closed source job.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 year ago

          If you’re the copyright holder, nothing stops you from releasing your work under more than once license. It is not necessary to use permissive licensing; you are perfectly free to release your stuff to the general public with a copyleft license while also granting your company a separate license even with proprietary terms if you want.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            101 year ago

            Only until you have any other contributor, as you’re then no longer the sole copyright holder. If you still want to work like that you’ll need a CLA.

            • Neshura
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

              Correct me if I’m wrong but if I start a project with a GPL and a custom proprietary license for use at work wouldn’t that also apply to any contributions by 3rd parties later on to that projevt? Afaik only adding or switching licenses with existing 3rd party contributions is difficult without a CLA.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                Kinda. IANAL, but here’s my understanding: If you’re explicitly dual-licensing and publish the proprietary license then contributions can be assumed to also follow the same dual licensing. You’d need to be extremely careful with writing the proprietary license though, since your business is now using non-employee proprietary code.

                If you write “the copyright holder may choose to allow an entity to use this work”, then you do actually need permission from every contributor. If you write “this work may be copied, modified and redistributed freely by Blah enterprises” now the business cannot be sold without losing access (or possibly have it’s name changed). If you write “Neshura may freely copy, modify and redistribute this” then you can’t be fired or move jobs without the company losing access.

                You can also never ever change this license, since every contributor needs to agree. So if a mistake is made when writing it you’re just fucked.

                On the other hand with a CLA that transfers copyright ownership you don’t need to dual-license at all since everything already belongs to the business. Much less risky.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          191 year ago

          Be really careful with this.

          Depending on how you contribute to your OSS code, commits you make on company time are considered property of the company. You could, unknowingly, be forcing your code to be closed source if your company ever decides to make a claim for it.

          I prefer to keep things bifurcated. I never reuse my own library and if I do, I rewrite it whole cloth.

          • folkrav
            link
            fedilink
            141 year ago

            “Company time” doesn’t mean much to me, as a remote salaried worker with relatively flexible schedules. Not touching anything but work code from my company machine should be enough, as far as I could understand. Not a lawyer, though.

            • stinerman
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              It will come down to the laws in your country and how much money you plan to spend on lawyers if your employer wants to force the issue.

      • wagesj45
        link
        fedilink
        601 year ago

        Not all of us write code simply for monetary gain and some of us have philosophical differences on what you can and should own as far as the public commons goes. And not all of us view closed derivatives as a ontologically bad.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          231 year ago

          And not all of us view closed derivatives as a ontologically bad.

          Please explain how allowing a third-party to limit computer users’ ability to control and modify their own property is anything other than ontologically bad?

          • wagesj45
            link
            fedilink
            271 year ago

            If I release something free of restrictions to the world as a gift, that is my prerogative. And a third party’s actions don’t affect my ability to do whatever I want with the original code, nor the users of their product’s ability to do what they want with my code. And the idea of “property” here is pretty abstract. What is it you own when you purchase software? Certainly not everything. Probably not nothing. But there is a wide swath in between in which reasonable people can disagree.

            If you are an intellectual property abolitionist, I doubt there is much I can say to change your mind.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              10
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m not convinced something being your “perogative” and it being “ontologically bad” are mutually exclusive, so I don’t see how that’s a rebuttal.

              I want to know why you think it isn’t bad, not why you think you’re allowed to do it.

              • wagesj45
                link
                fedilink
                101 year ago

                Because I don’t know why it is closed source. Is it a personal project? A private project? A sensitive project? I don’t see a moral imperative for any of those to be free and open to all users.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          71 year ago

          Software licenses don’t change ownership. That requires transfer of copyright, like with contributor agreements.

          Though I am aware that a small set of people seek less copyleft licenses because they think they’re better. They are usually wrong in their thinking, but they do exist.

          I’m not sure what you are referring to about ontologically bad. Has someone said this?

          • wagesj45
            link
            fedilink
            81 year ago

            I’m not sure what you are referring to about ontologically bad. Has someone said this?

            I’m going by the vibe of the comments of people here who are generally anti-MIT. That the very nature of allowing someone to use your code in a closed-source project without attribution is bad. Phrasing it as “hiding their copyright infringement”, for example, implies that it is copyright infringement per se regardless of the license or the spirit in which it was released.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              71 year ago

              Oh no I mean that there are companies that just don’t care about licensing and plod ahead hoping it’s never an issue. Like having devs build a “prototype” that they know uses AGPL code and saying, “we will swap this out later” and then 6 months later the “prototype” is in production.

              Personally, I make a lot of my personal projects’ code closed because I specifically don’t want it to be useable by others. Not for jerky reasons, but strategic ones. IMO common licenses don’t achieve what a lot of people hope they do.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        16
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re not seeing the whole picture: I’m paid by the government to do research, and in doing that research my group develops several libraries that can benefit not only other research groups, but also industry. We license these libraries under MIT, because otherwise industry would be far more hesitant to integrate our libraries with their proprietary production code.

        I’m also an idealist of sorts. The way I see it, I’m developing publicly funded code that can be used by anyone, no strings attached, to boost productivity and make the world a better place. The fact that this gives us publicity and incentivises the industry to collaborate with us is just a plus. Calling it a self-imposed unpaid internship, when I’m literally hired full time to develop this and just happen to have the freedom to be able to give it out for free, is missing the mark.

        Also, we develop these libraries primarily for our own in-house use, and see the adoption of the libraries by others as a great way to uncover flaws and improve robustness. Others creating closed-source derivatives does not harm us or anyone else in any way as far as I can see.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          61 year ago

          If the government is the US (federal), I think you are technically supposed to release your code in the public domain by default. Some people work around this but it’s the default.

          But anyways, the example you’ve given is basically that you’re paid with government funds to do work to assist industry. This is fairly similar to the people that do the work for free for industry, only this time it’s basically taxpayersl money subsidizing industry. I’ve seen this many times. There is a whole science/engineering/standards + contractor complex that is basically one big grift, though the individual people writing the code are usually just doing their best.

          I’m also an idealist of sorts. The way I see it, I’m developing publicly funded code that can be used by anyone, no strings attached, to boost productivity and make the world a better place. The fact that this gives us publicity and incentivises the industry to collaborate with us is just a plus.

          Perhaps it makes the world a better place, perhaps it doesn’t. This part of the industry focuses a lot on identifying a “social good” that they are improving, but the actual impact can be quite different. One person’s climate project is another’s strategic military site selector. One person’s great new standard for transportation is another’s path to monopoly power and the draining of public funds that could have gone to infrastructure. This is the typical way it works. I’m sure there can be exceptions, though.

          Anyways, I would recommend taking a skeptical eye to any position that sells you on its positive social impact. That is often a red flag for some kind of NGO industrial complex gig.

          Calling it a self-imposed unpaid internship, when I’m literally hired full time to develop this and just happen to have the freedom to be able to give it out for free, is missing the mark.

          Well you’re paid so of course it wouldn’t be that.

          Also, we develop these libraries primarily for our own in-house use, and see the adoption of the libraries by others as a great way to uncover flaws and improve robustness. Others creating closed-source derivatives does not harm us or anyone else in any way as far as I can see.

          Sometimes the industries will open bug reports for their free lunches, yes. A common story in community projects is that they realize they’re doing a lot of support work for companies that aren’t paying them. When they start to get burned out, they put out calls for funding so they can dedicate more time to the project. Sometimes this kind of works but usually the story goes the other way. They don’t get enough money and continue to burn out. You are paid so it’s a bit different, but it’s not those companies paying you, eh?

          You aren’t harmed by closed source derivatives because that seems to be the point of your work. Providing government subsidy to private companies that enclose the derivative product and make money for their executives and shareholders off of it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            You are almost on point here, but seem to be missing the primary point of my work. I work as a researcher at a university, doing more-or-less fundamental research on topics that are relevant to industry.

            As I wrote: We develop our libraries for in-house use, and release the to the public because we know that they are valuable to the industry. If what I do is to be considered “industry subsidies”, then all of higher education is industry subsidies. (You could make the argument that spending taxpayer money to educate skilled workers is effectively subsidising industry).

            We respond to issues that are related either to bugs that we need to fix for our own use, or features that we ourselves want. We don’t spend time implementing features others want unless they give us funding for some project that we need to implement it for.

            In short: I don’t work for industry, I work in research and education, and the libraries my group develops happen to be of interest to the industry. Most of my co-workers do not publish their code anywhere, because they aren’t interested in spending the time required to turn hacky academic code into a usable library. I do, because I’ve noticed how much time it saves me and my team in the long run to have production-quality libraries that we can build on.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              51 year ago

              You are almost on point here, but seem to be missing the primary point of my work. I work as a researcher at a university, doing more-or-less fundamental research on topics that are relevant to industry.

              This is something I’m very familiar with.

              As I wrote: We develop our libraries for in-house use, and release the to the public because we know that they are valuable to the industry. If what I do is to be considered “industry subsidies”, then all of higher education is industry subsidies. (You could make the argument that spending taxpayer money to educate skilled workers is effectively subsidising industry).

              This is largely the case, yes. Research universities do the basic research that industry then turns into a product and makes piles of cash from. And you are also correct that subsidizing STEM education is a subsidy for industry. It very specifically is meant to do that. It displaces industry job training and/or the companies paying to send their workers to get a degree. It also has the benefit of increasing overall supply in theur labor market, which helps drive down wages. Companies prefer having a big pool of potential workers they barely have to train.

              We respond to issues that are related either to bugs that we need to fix for our own use, or features that we ourselves want. We don’t spend time implementing features others want unless they give us funding for some project that we need to implement it for.

              That’s good!

              In short: I don’t work for industry, I work in research and education, and the libraries my group develops happen to be of interest to the industry. Most of my co-workers do not publish their code anywhere, because they aren’t interested in spending the time required to turn hacky academic code into a usable library. I do, because I’ve noticed how much time it saves me and my team in the long run to have production-quality libraries that we can build on.

              I think your approach is better. I also prefer to write better-quality code, which for me entails thinking more carefully about its structure and interfaces and using best practices like testing and CI.