The dominance of libertarianism, and pro corporate licensing within the FOSS world is disgusting and annoying me. I don’t have any articles or anything that is hard proof. But I do have this github post and graph I guess
And the other thing I have? A hunch 
I’m glad the software is free, but come the fuck on. “Problematic” for fucking who?? Google? It better be!
Thank you dessalines for having a spine, and choosing a proper license.
And the site that they link? It’s not only highly pro corporate but also fucking lying!!!
It doesn’t prevent you from selling shit!!! Shut the fuck up!!! I’m not making my work a way for you to easily profit, give shit back or fuck off 
They can keep making the shit that they do, but I ain’t committing a single line of code to that fucker.
I’m working to make a contribution of a project to FOSS. My understanding, based on nothing but a hunch, is that people can just have it. Full stop. My prayer is that I stop at least a single for profit SaaS company from being profitable with an easy, free alternative.
Can you explain this drama to me, please? It’s proximally relevant
Copy left turns copyright into a tool of collective ownership among the working class, tech oligarchs hate this, so they invented permissive licenses that essentially force workers into giving free labor to companies with no mechanism for giving back.
GitHub, owned by MS, offers the permissive MIT/Expat license as the default, so users are pushed into not fighting for their rights or having a class consciousness in the first place.
It’s not really drama more than its techbros bootlicking capitalists and giving their labor away rather than ensuring it remains collectively owned and operated.
Just did a little research on it. You have saved me. I think I’m going to want an AGPL license
Oh and another thing, the gnu project maintains a HUUUUGE list of licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
I can’t believe me making a post about this nonsense, in an indirect way, actually helped you. That’s awesome
STEMlords are already primed to reject anything that sounds “philosophical”, such as differences between license types.
You’re being ideological! You will never make anything with that attitude!
As if what you’re making and who it’s for are somehow secondary, trifling matters. Yeah I’ve been down this dialog tree a few times how could you tell?
Hate to break it to you but:
I used to work in software and several times we’d use something, I’d check the license and read something about how companies are required to pay for it, I’d ask a senior coworker “do we have a commercial license?” and they’d read the license and say we didn’t need it because of (legal technical mumbo jumbo I didn’t understand) and I, junior dev, overworked and precariously positioned, would just take their word for it. In retrospect I think what actually happens is these for profit corps spit in the face of licenses like that and will just try to get away with as much as they can because the odds of getting caught are low and who has the resources to sue them and make them pay?
The odds are low, but never 0. I’d rather not get the cuck license and not even try.
Oh for sure.
i haven’t gotten much sleep and it’s really early so apologies if i misunderstood the question. very broadly, there’s two kinds of open source licenses: copyleft and permissive. generally, permissive licenses like MIT allow any usage of the code, including by copyrighting your own contributions or including it in copyrighted works. copyleft licenses require additions to the code to be open sourced too. this was a problem for apple when GNU code updated from GPLv2 to v3, which iirc added the restriction that any package that included licensed programs also had to be copyleft. this was a problem because apple had packaged a lot of GPL programs with macOS, so now they haven’t been updated since 2007
I’m having trouble following the consequence cascade you’re describing. The GPL license updated which tried to add in some copylefting (i.e. Apple was compelled to open source stuff to keep using it). Therefore, they simply stopped updating them so they wouldn’t need the new license.
Is that it?
yeah that’s the situation as i understand it. obviously im not a lawyer and whatnot but the way i understand it apple would have been required to open source the entirety of macOS if they had included GPLv3 software. GPLv2 was also considered copyleft (in fact, the FSF, who is responsible for GPL, coined the term), but GPLv3 added more stipulations in response to practices by corporations (most notably TiVO) that were not appreciated by the free software community
More info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization