You must log in or register to comment.
I’ve always thought of it this way: permissive licenses ensure freedom for developers. Copyleft licenses ensure freedom for end-users.
I still kinda like the restrictive takes of copyfarleft that prevents for-profit entities to use anything without contributions. Workers, co-ops, nonprofits do not have any of those restrictions.
My biggest issues with those licenses are specifically that they are & never could be GPL-compatible which would encourage permissive licenses for libraries which is part of what both license types want to avoid.
Has anyone gone so far as to dual-license under copyleft & copyfarleft?
Man, people do love arguing about words without providing (or looking up) their definitions.
Does the GPL being non “restrictive” mean I can use GPL code in my proprietary software? What word that doesn’t offend you should I use to describe this fact?
This is as useless as the git main/master branch debate a while ago.
The problem with a copyleft license is it’s hard to make a commercial software open source because a competitor can simply copy your work and sell it for cheaper.
That isn’t a problem, but a feature, see: https://opensource.net/why-single-vendor-is-the-new-proprietary/
I know. It’s obviously better for the consumer, but it makes it harder to base your business around it, as noted in that article.
So if I want to build a business, I have to look for libraries that are not copy left, and if I want businesses to use my software, I should not license my software as copy left.
These days selling the software itself is rarely successful nor a particularly good business model. Basically only computer games still work like that, and the commercially really successful ones not any more either.
Hard agree on this. Sell software and services to companies, only sell services to end users. I believe both selling your service as a dev and selling a service behind a free app are compatible with copyleft.
