Context:

Permissive licenses (commonly referred to as “cuck licenses”) like the MIT license allow others to modify your software and release it under an unfree license. Copyleft licenses (like the Gnu General Public License) mandate that all derivative works remain free.

Andrew Tanenbaum developed MINIX, a modular operating system kernel. Intel went ahead and used it to build Management Engine, arguably one of the most widespread and invasive pieces of malware in the world, without even as much as telling him. There’s nothing Tanenbaum could do, since the MIT license allows this.

Erik Andersen is one of the developers of Busybox, a minimal implementation of that’s suited for embedded systems. Many companies tried to steal his code and distribute it with their unfree products, but since it’s protected under the GPL, Busybox developers were able to sue them and gain some money in the process.

Interestingly enough, Tanenbaum doesn’t seem to mind what intel did. But there are some examples out there of people regretting releasing their work under a permissive license.

  • best_username_ever@sh.itjust.works
    91·
    5 months ago

    There’s nothing Tanenbaum could do

    Tanenbaum doesn’t seem to mind

    Today OP was very dumb and showed his ignorance of the concept “I do whatever I fucking want.” Don’t be like OP.

    people regretting releasing their work under a permissive license

    They’re free to change the licence of future versions. OP also failed at understanding the concept of licences. He’s such a silly moron!

    • TheEntity@lemmy.world
      33·
      5 months ago

      They’re free to change the licence of future versions.

      Only if they are still the only contributor. Once you have more contributors, it gets far tougher to change the licence.

      • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
        12·
        5 months ago

        How does it work with contributors? Does absolutely everyone have to consent to having the license changed? If one of the contributors doesn’t consent, can the maintainer “cut out” their contributions into a separate program and redistribute it as a plugin with the original license?

        • QuazarOmega@lemy.lolEnglish
          11·
          5 months ago

          You can keep all the lines of those who didn’t accept to the change with the original license, it will end up as a bad mix, but it’s doable if the licenses are compatible

        • woelkchen@lemmy.world
          2·
          5 months ago

          Does absolutely everyone have to consent to having the license changed?

          Very minor changes (like fixing typos in comments) aren’t copyrightable, so these changes don’t require approval. When LibreOffice was relicensed, IIRC they they had some cutoff regarding lines of code.

      • dariusj18@lemmy.world
        11·
        5 months ago

        Pretty sure that with a permissive license you can just change the license of future versions as you want. Ex. v1 MIT license with thousanda.of contributors, v2 Commercial license with contributions from anyone who agrees to contribute to the new version and license. (Anyone can fork v1 and start their own licensed project)

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
      22·
      5 months ago

      They’re free to change the licence of future versions.

      Why do you act like I don’t know that? The issue here is that once you realize that the license you chose does not reflect your intentions, the damage has likely already been done. From the article I linked:

      I didn’t have the foresight to see this coming. I didn’t think people so lacked in the spirit of open source. I wanted to promote community contributions, not to have them monetized by other people who don’t even provide the source to their modifications. I wanted to grow the tools as a community, not have closed source forks of them overtake my own open source versions.