Vitalik Buterin pfp
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
Why I used to prefer permissive licenses and now favor copyleft https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2025/07/07/copyleft.html
11 replies
24 recasts
184 reactions

vrypan |--o--| pfp
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
I'm still in favor of permissive: 1. Not all copyleft licenses are compatible between them. So, you may be able to use A||B but not A&&B. 2. Downstream from #1, you end up seeking legal assistance in order to build the thing you want to build and understand what is the proper license you have to use for the result using A&&B. 3. Permissive made much more sense when we actually distributed software. When it's all about services, it doesn't matter, does it?
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions

shazow pfp
shazow
@shazow.eth
You're right about the reasons for wanting copyleft (nudge towards openness), but you're wrong that copyleft archives them. 1. Copyleft creates rewrites, not collaboration. There are tons of examples of people rewriting copyleft encumbered code, it's cheap and fast to rewrite just the part you need. I've even done it. There are ~no examples of an existing codebases being relicensed just to adopt a copyleft dependency. If we're lucky, the rewrite is OSS, but that's not the default! I'd go as far as to claim copyleft creates more duplicated proprietary code. No one wants to maintain a fork if they don't have to, I'd rather upstream a fix and have it be maintained for free. Permissive licenses create more collaboration this way by default. Permissive creates less duplicated code and more OSS. 2. Strong copyleft is asymmetric and exclusionary. Copyright holders have special rights to relicense under different terms that the user/consumer does not have. Many companies ban touching strong copyleft code, and most people work for companies, so you're naturally losing a huge subset of possibly collaborators. Permissive licenses are symmetric, everyone has the same rights including the author and users. (Can expand more if you'd like, working on a essay myself.)
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions

IvanAnishchuk.eth pfp
IvanAnishchuk.eth
@ivananishchuk
I also think it's a mistake to consider public domain dedication (e.g. CC0) to be similar to permissive licenses (copyright-based). Often close in practical terms (less usage restrictions) but conceptually very different not unlike permissive slavery is different from freedom, threat of legal action makes a difference.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

IvanAnishchuk.eth pfp
IvanAnishchuk.eth
@ivananishchuk
I strongly prefer CC-Zero and in general don't like the idea of copyrights and imposing on people what they should do with things I create to be public (threatening legal action, no less, if theoretically if they use it in some way I don't approve of). If I wanted control and restrictions I'd just kept it private. (But that's just my own opinion, I try not to impose, some people like copyrights and other legal privileges and I don't intend to convince them otherwise.)
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

SyncLynk pfp
SyncLynk
@synclynk
Love ❤️
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Pent pfp
Pent
@sirpent
costs money (and time) to enforce a copyleft stance, should be considered seems lose-lose
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

max ↑ pfp
max ↑
@baseddesigner.eth
doubt many people even think about licenses when doing things but I like that copyleft approach is scaling ideas better
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

max ↑ pfp
max ↑
@baseddesigner.eth
interestingly designs are by default a copyleft
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Bitgrass pfp
Bitgrass
@bitgrass
Interesting shift — and timely. In a world of concentrated power and fast coordination, permissionless isn’t always enough. Copyleft might be one of the few defenses that scales
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

joshisdead.eth pfp
joshisdead.eth
@joshisdead.eth
What's your favorite copyleft meme so we can @clanker it 👀
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

noice pfp
noice
@noicebot
https://app.noice.so/?castHash=0x1e9711590aa5789346687055187b4f0a542ce04f&timestamp=1751909404344
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction