Skip to Content
Last modified by chrisby on 2025/01/11 10:03
From version 2.77
edited by chrisby
on 2025/01/08 11:08
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 2.80
edited by chrisby
on 2025/01/08 11:10
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@
42 42  The FSF sees several problems with permissive licenses:
43 43  
44 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, the vendors have the power to commercial their efforts uneethrough sharply increasing prices etc. This is called "proprietary capture" or "open core hijacking".
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. This is called "proprietary capture" or "open core hijacking".
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**