0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
15 replies
9 recasts
87 reactions
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
I do think that your premise is correct, that permissive licenses produce more open-source and create a larger pool of authors.
But also allows more companies to shape the future of a project, the idea of copyleft is to limit the control of capital, copyleft by design is ment to reduce capital power in software, and that many times might be the desired outcome, especially if the project is of large importance, for smaller projects a copyleft or permisive license does not matter so much.
Also, to be honest, while copyleft licenses will affect capital interests, the Linux ecosystem is full of copyleft, and we can hardly say that the Linux ecosystem is a failure; in fact, it’s the backbone of what powers most of the online world. 2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
It’s just speculation. IMO, saying that Linux failed just because it does not have a significant market share on the desktop is a huge fallacy.
You can reverse that and say that Win and Mac have failed because their server share is even lower than Linux’s share on desktops.
You can find a plethora of reasons why Linux is a success, from the number of authors, contributions, companies involved etc, there’s no premissive license project by a mile to compare with those stats yet your premise is that a premissve license would have been better.
I fail to see any evidence, again, Linux is an absolute success, while I am not claiming that the copyleft is the reason, it is under a copyleft license, so that disproves that copyleft-licensed projects can't be successful.
Again, once a project gets successful, the license just dictates what you optimize for. Both permissive and copyleft licenses are better than proprietary code, and both can advance open-source goals, but they optimize for different outcomes. 0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
