• AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.mlM
    5·
    3 years ago

    Indeed, copyleft is not enough to guarantee that corporations won’t make money with your code. Without modifying the code, an evil company could increase its profit just by using your software.

    Correct, but depending on the specific license, they would still have to distribute the source (read: not JUST credit you, THEY have to independently provide a way of getting access to the source code), and if they make any improvements, which they’ll probably want to do, they have to share that back with you. This results in the product itself continuously improving for everyone, profit or not.

    • Liwott@lemmy.ml
      2·
      3 years ago

      Actually, I was only meaning use it internally to improve their own workflow.

      They can still bundle it with other things, only release your code, secretly improving only what they did on top of your API and make money out of the bundle, so why stoppping there and using a free license rather than something with a NC clause?

      On the other hand, one could argue that GPL would refrain a corp from including your software in their product, while at least the cite you get with the MIT license at least gets you some advertisement and potential contirbutors.

      What if other free software developers use a license incompatible with the GPL for their own reason, is it OK to deprive them from the right to simply incorporate your code in the name of fighting big tech?

      I don’t mean to say that it does not make sense to use the GPL, it is probably the most sensible choice if your aim is to fight big tech corporations. But not every piece of software is written as a commercial weapon.