Strong vs weak free software licensing [LWN.net]

Strong vs weak free software licensing

Posted Oct 3, 2005 6:44 UTC (Mon) by bignose (subscriber, #40)
In reply to: What Is Free Software (O'ReillyNet) by jstAusr
Parent article: What Is Free Software (O'ReillyNet)

With a copyleft, such as the GNU GPL, the code cannot be taken proprietary by any party -- ensuring that any improved versions that are distributed keep the same freedoms.

With a more permissive license, the software can be taken proprietary *in a particular fork* of that software. The software is still free upstream of that fork, and anyone can continue to improve the version before the fork, leaving the proprietary fork to its own fate.

Those who want all users of any version to know the software is free will choose a copyleft. Those who want the code to appeal to the most people will choose a more-permissive license, saying that proprietary forks don't matter.

(Log in to post comments)

Strong vs weak free software licensing

Posted Oct 3, 2005 17:50 UTC (Mon) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link]

> Those who want the code to appeal to the most people will choose a
> more-permissive license, saying that proprietary forks don't matter.

That statement *could* possibly be true in a world without software patents, but with software patents the proprietary fork could easily gain an unfair advantage. Can you even support the "appeal to the most people" statement.
I think it would mostly appeal to someone who wanted community help for a proprietary project. The GNU GPL gives the best chance for all participants to be treated equally and I beleive it appeals to the most people for that reason. The more-permissive license is just a get out of work free card for some propriety company.