I’m a very much pro free software person and I used to think that GPL is basically the only possible option when it comes to benefits for free software (and not commercial use), but I’ve recently realised this question is actually much more ambiguous.

I think there are two sides to this issue:

  • GPL forces all contributions to stay open-source which prevents commercialisation* of FOSS projects, but also causes possible interference of corporate software design philosophy and all kinds of commercial decisions, if contributions come from companies.
  • MIT-like permissive licenses, on the other hand, easily allow for making proprietary forks, which, however, separates commercial work from the rest of the project, therefore making the project more likely to stay free both of corporate influence and in general.

So it boils down to the fact, that in my opinion what makes free software free is not only the way it’s distributed but also the whole philosophy behind it: centralisation vs. decentralisation, passive consumer vs. co-developper role of the user etc. And this is where things start to be a bit controversial.

What do you think?

*UPD: wrong word. I mean close-sourcing and turning into a profitable product instead of something that fulfils your needs

  • pineapple@lemmy.mlEnglish
    1·
    6 hours ago

    merging those contributions kinda becomes an actual need of users

    When you say it becomes a need does this mean that not merging them would course the projects to fail? This means that if the option to merge the contribution didn’t exist in the first place (like non free software) the project would fail.

    but I still think that letting companies just fuck off and do their own centralised thing separately from decentralised DIY-like development which, to my mind, is actual freedom, might help.

    Actual freedom is taking away peoples rights to make things worse. If you want an example of what happens when actual freedom is available look at the free market.