• SwooshBakery624 [they/them]@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 days ago

    A world where we can share advancements and technologies freely with one another and innovate based on the prior work of others is a world where a shit load of cool stuff gets done.

    And how does a copyleft license get in the way of that? On the contrary, with the GPL, I can be sure that the technology and code will be freely shared. Freely as in freedom, that’s the whole point.

    • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I misunderstood your initial point, I thought you were speaking against permissive/copyleft licenses generally. We agree with one another. Except in the “I can be sure that the technology and code will be freely shared” because just as bad actors can abuse a permissive license, bad actors (see: companies with enough money to just squash the legal case) can simply ignore a copyleft license. I think we 99% agree though and I love copyleft.

      • SwooshBakery624 [they/them]@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        because just as bad actors can abuse a permissive license, bad actors

        You are right, but with copyleft you at least have legal mechanisms to force the company to comply with the license. With MIT or BSD there aren’t any, because permissive licences don’t enforce any such restrictions.

        I think we 99% agree though and I love copyleft.

        Yup. And I love copyleft too.

      • boonhet@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Permissive is the opposite of copyleft. Permissive is “here’s my code, do whatever the fuck you want”, copyleft is “here’s my code, you may use it but if your derivative work is available to other people then I dictate how it must be licensed”