Skip to Content
Last modified by chrisby on 2025/01/11 10:03
From version 2.76
edited by chrisby
on 2025/01/08 11:07
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 2.124
edited by chrisby
on 2025/01/11 09:56
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -41,18 +41,22 @@
41 41  
42 42  The FSF sees several problems with permissive licenses:
43 43  
44 -* Permissive code allows vendors to include it in their proprietary products. Software that is partially open source does not necessarily make it more secure. For example, in a product that is 99% open source code, the remaining 1% proprietary portion may contain all the malicious code. This means that the partially open source product poses the same dangers as a 100% proprietary product. According to the FSF, only 100% open source code running on your own machine is a necessary condition for achieving freedom and security.
45 -* Another problem is that vendors can reuse permissive code without any obligation to share improvements. The vendor writes new proprietary or closed source code based on the open source code and keeps those improvements for himself. This means that the work of the open source community can be used for the vendor's financial benefit without anything being given back. Worse, because the proprietary product has improvements, it may outcompete the original open source project, reducing its impact and harming the open source ecosystem. Vendors can trick users in joining their proprietary, and as soon as the original project is technically left behind and users are dependent on the proprietary software,   This is called "proprietary capture" or "open core hijacking".
44 +* Permissive code allows vendors to include it in their proprietary products. Software that is partially open source does not necessarily make it more secure. For example, in a product that is 99% open source code, the remaining 1% proprietary portion may contain all the malicious code. This means that the partially open source product poses the same dangers as a 100% proprietary product. Only 100% open source code running on your own machine is a necessary condition for achieving freedom and security.
45 +* Another problem is that vendors can reuse permissive code without any obligation to share improvements. The vendor writes new proprietary or closed source code based on the open source code and keeps those improvements for himself. This means that the work of the open source community can be used for the vendor's financial benefit without anything being given back. Worse, because the proprietary product has improvements, it may outcompete the original open source project, reducing its impact and harming the open source ecosystem. Vendors can trick users into joining their proprietary software, and once the original project is technically left behind and users are dependent on the proprietary software, the vendors have the power to commercialize their efforts under their terms through sharply increasing prices, etc. A common term for this process is the "free-rider" problem.
46 46  * There is also the problem of fragmentation. Multiple vendors may each create their own proprietary product based on the same permissive code. Instead of collaborating and contributing back to the common core project, they are inefficiently duplicating their efforts.
47 47  
48 48  **Copyleft Licenses**
49 49  
50 -To address the problems with proprietary software, the FSF primarily promotes copyleft licenses, which require that any derivative works of the software be licensed under the same terms as the original code. The term "derivative work" is legally vague, but a common understanding is that it means a new work based on the original copyleft code that incorporates it at the source level. This ensures that when contributions are made to a copyleft project, or when copyleft code is directly reused in another project, the resulting work must be released under the same copyleft license. This prevents vendors from incorporating copyleft code into proprietary products, and ensures that any derivative works remain open source. In addition, copyleft licenses require that the source code be made available to users so that they can modify, build, and control the software themselves.
50 +To address problems with proprietary software, the FSF promotes copyleft licenses, such as the AGPL, which require that any derivative works remain under the same license.
51 51  
52 -**OSI Position**
52 +The term "derivative work" is somewhat vague in legal terms, but a common interpretation is that software that depends on AGPL code to function is a derivative work. For example, if a project directly incorporates AGPL source code or relies on an AGPL library, it must adopt the AGPL license for its entire code base. Similarly, if software calls an external AGPL service over a network and the service is purely optional, the software is not considered a derivative work. However, if the service is essential and the software won't work without it, even if the AGPL code is hosted externally, the software is still considered a derivative work. Therefore, attempting to "work around" the AGPL by outsourcing essential functions in a network service will not avoid the license requirements.
53 53  
54 -The OSI aims to maximize the contributions and impact of open source by being open to a variety of open source licenses. Permissive licenses have become very popular in recent years, especially in commercial contexts, but open source developers also choose copyleft licenses when they want to ensure that derivative works remain open and free.
54 +In summary, copyleft licenses like the AGPL ensure that whenever code is reused or contributions are made to existing code, the resulting work must remain open source. These licenses also require that the source code be made available upon request, so that users can modify, build, and control the software themselves if they wish.
55 55  
56 +**License Preferences**
57 +
58 +The OSI aims to maximize the contributions and impact of open source by being neutral and open to all licenses that meet the open source definition, whether permissive or copyleft. The FSF accepts all open source licenses, but has a strong preference for copyleft licenses.
59 +
56 56  **User Behavior**
57 57  
58 58  Open source supporters tend to be more accepting of proprietary software and external hardware where it makes sense. In contrast, free software supporters typically avoid proprietary software and seek to maintain full control over their hardware and data. While free software supporters prioritize self-hosting and control, they may use third-party services for public data, provided that the software used respects their principles.
... ... @@ -61,12 +61,12 @@
61 61  
62 62  **Do permissive or copyleft licenses provide the most freedom?**
63 63  
64 -* The answer depends on your definition of freedom. Permissive licenses emphasize freedom of choice, allowing you to do whatever you want with the code, including reusing it in proprietary products. Copyleft licenses emphasize user freedom in a more political sense by ensuring that derivative works remain free and open, and by protecting users from proprietary restrictions that could violate the four essential software freedoms. Thus, both permissive and copyleft licenses provide freedom, but they focus on different aspects of it.
68 +* The answer depends on your definition of freedom. Permissive licenses emphasize freedom of choice, allowing you to do whatever you want with the code, including reusing it in proprietary products. Copyleft licenses emphasize user freedom in a more political sense, ensuring that derivative works remain free and open, and protecting users from proprietary restrictions that might violate the four essential software freedoms. Thus, permissive and copyleft licenses attempt to maximize different kinds of freedom.
65 65  
66 66  **Does a permissive or copyleft project lead to more contributions?**
67 67  
68 -* Permissive licenses might attract more users, especially vendors, and lead to more voluntary contributions. Copyleft licenses, on the other hand, force improvements to be open sourced and shared with the community. Which effect is greater depends on the situation.
72 +* Permissive licenses might attract more users, especially vendors, and lead to more voluntary contributions. Copyleft licenses, on the other hand, might repel some contributors, but force improvements to be open-sourced and shared with the community. Which effect is greater depends on the situation.
69 69  
70 -**Why should people with no technical expertise care about open source? Speaking of people who cannot even read the source code.**
74 +**Why should people with no technical expertise care about open source?**
71 71  
72 -* Even if you do not have the expertise to examine or modify the source code yourself, open source software allows you to hire specialists to adapt the software to your needs. The main benefits are the protection of personal data or intellectual property and reduced dependency on a single vendor. Therefore, from a purely profit-driven perspective, choosing open source may be the more economical option.
76 +* Even if you do not have the expertise to examine or modify the source code yourself, open source software allows you to hire developers to adapt the software to your needs. The main benefits are the protection of personal data or intellectual property and reduced dependency on a single vendor. Therefore, from a purely profit-driven perspective, choosing open source may be the more economical option.