This is why copyleft licenses like gpl, agpl, mit, creative commons exist. If they use those projects then the derivatives would also need to be open source.
GPL can be used for commercial purposes, but it requires all software derived from it to also be open source and GPL compatible. So no one whose commercial business relies on selling software will use GPL because their customers can copy and distribute the code.
Neither Safari nor Chrome’s rendering engine is GPL. Safari’s engine is LGPL, which means the binary library can be linked into a closed source program, but modifications to the library’s code must remain open.
Chromium is BSD, which doesn’t even require modifications to remain open. So I can take chromium’s source, change it however I want for my own browser, and never distribute that code.
If Safari’s and Chrome’s engines were GPL, Safari and Chrome would be forced to be open source, and they very much are not.
Thanks for pointing it out. I was making a project that uses this license and derivatives had to use MIT license. I forgot that it’s not copyleft and so it allows derivatives to be proprietary.
Correct. This is also why Apple switched to zsh as the default shell over bash. They still ship Bash 3.2 in macOS, because from 4.0 on, Bash started using GPLv3 instead of GPLv2.
I’m not against the idea of creating proprietary software out of open-source software, if the license allows that. However, I am always against this practice of “closing the door behind you”.
This is why copyleft licenses like gpl, agpl,
mit, creative commons exist. If they use those projects then the derivatives would also need to be open source.Edit: mit is not copyleft
MIT is free for commercial use and just requires attribution, you aren’t required to open source software derived from MIT licensed code.
GPL is also free for commercial use… all open source licenses are. The rendering engines used by Safari (and Chrome/Edge) are GPL.
GPL can be used for commercial purposes, but it requires all software derived from it to also be open source and GPL compatible. So no one whose commercial business relies on selling software will use GPL because their customers can copy and distribute the code.
Neither Safari nor Chrome’s rendering engine is GPL. Safari’s engine is LGPL, which means the binary library can be linked into a closed source program, but modifications to the library’s code must remain open.
Chromium is BSD, which doesn’t even require modifications to remain open. So I can take chromium’s source, change it however I want for my own browser, and never distribute that code.
If Safari’s and Chrome’s engines were GPL, Safari and Chrome would be forced to be open source, and they very much are not.
Thanks for pointing it out. I was making a project that uses this license and derivatives had to use MIT license. I forgot that it’s not copyleft and so it allows derivatives to be proprietary.
Correct. This is also why Apple switched to zsh as the default shell over bash. They still ship Bash 3.2 in macOS, because from 4.0 on, Bash started using GPLv3 instead of GPLv2.
I’m not against the idea of creating proprietary software out of open-source software, if the license allows that. However, I am always against this practice of “closing the door behind you”.
I agree. If they use open source code. They should give back. It doesn’t matter if it was copyleft or permissive.