this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
804 points (98.0% liked)

linuxmemes

20880 readers
3 users here now

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 79 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sometimes there's a benefit in getting open source code into proprietary software. Think libraries implementing interoperability APIs, communication protocols, file formats, etc

That's what permissive licenses are for.

If some company wants to keep their code closed and they have a choice between something interoperable or something proprietary that they will subsequently promote, and the licence is the only thing stopping them from going for the open source approach, that's worse.

Completely agree that a good breadth of everything else is suited to copyleft licensing though

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is a hypothetical that has no clear bearing connection to common practice.

In other words, I could just reverse this to contradict it and have equal weight to my hypothetical: devs should always use GPL, because if their software gets widely adopted to the point where companies are forced to use it, it's better that it's copyleft.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

This is not a hypothetical and is in fact quite common. Say you're working for a non profit, write code for a standard specification that is better than all other open options. It is better for everyone that companies adopt this code for interoperability.