• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    129 months ago

    This is why I love FOSS products. You get the advantage of using well engineered code, without the risk of that code falling into the hands of exploitive capitalists.

    • @grue
      link
      English
      119 months ago

      Permissively-licensed stuff (e.g. MIT, BSD) still has that risk. What you really want is copyleft (e.g. GPL) specifically, not just FOSS.

      • Possibly linux
        link
        fedilink
        English
        29 months ago

        You can change the license at any point. You just can’t make people change the license of past copies

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            29 months ago

            gpl does not prevent the owner from changing the licence later. (Unless it is also making use of someone else’s gpl components.)

            For example, Qt has a free version which is under the GPL; and a paid version which is not. So if you were making software with Qt, if you were using the free version, you’d be compelled to also release your product under GPL. But you could then later switch to a paid subscription and rerelease under some other licience if you wanted to.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              19 months ago

              doesnt it require any modified versions of the code be shared, preventing a change to a non-copyleft liscence?

              • Possibly linux
                link
                fedilink
                English
                39 months ago

                Not if the copyright owner changes the license. When you are the creator you can do what you please. With that being said you can not do that if the public writes code. That’s why you see CLAs (contributor license agreement)