I ask this because I think of the recent switch of Ubuntu to the Rust recode of the GNU core utils, which use an MIT license. There are many Rust recodes of GPL software that re-license it as a pushover MIT or Apache licenses. I worry these relicensing efforts this will significantly harm the FOSS ecosystem. Is this reason to start worrying or is it not that bad?
IMO, if the FOSS world makes something public, with extensive liberties, then the only thing that should be asked in return is that people preserve these liberties, like the GPL successfully enforces. These pushover licenses preserve nothing.
In legal theory. In corporate practice, MIT and similar “pushover” licensed software, especially FOSS libraries, is more readily adopted by corporate users - and through this adoption it is exercised, tested, bug reported - sometimes the corporate trolls even crawl out from under their rocks and publish bug fixes and extensions for it. By comparison, GPL stuff is radioactive, therefore less used.
Then we can talk about how successful you are likely to be in enforcing GPT on any large entity, particularly those in foreign countries.
If it’s radioactive, that’s because of a fundamental assumptive imbalance in the contract between the author, the community, the users, the stakeholders, and the parasitic lawyers and their overlords.
If they don’t like it, pay/license and/or contribute.
In the corporate world, they have a lot to lose. So, they have lawyers - expensive lawyers - who, in theory, protect them from expensive lawsuits. One of the easiest ways to stay out of lawsuits over GPL and friends is to not use GPL software, so… that’s why it’s radioactive. Just having the parasitic lawyers review possible exposure is hellishly expensive, better to re-develop in-house than pay lawyers or even begin to think about the implications of entering into an agreement with a bunch of radical FOSS types.
It sucks, but it’s also how it is. Some corporations (like Intel) do heavily support and contribute to FOSS, when they feel like it.
Yeah this happens when the wrong kind of professional reviews exposure, which happens a lot.
Lawyers reviewing the licence terms will absolutely flag stuff that’s realistically a non-issue.
People that do threat risk assessment, (insurance type of thing) can view FOSS and other open standards as a reduction in risk across the board, and when these kind of professionals are tendering the creation of systems they specify open APIs and access to stuff. (At least in the projects that I’ve worked on, security systems in Toronto.)
This isn’t a hard rule, kinda a spectrum.
The whole legal/courts system is pretty dysfunctional at the low end of the economic spectrum (like: license fees that a group of 10s of developers might charge…) We have a shared well with our neighbor, put there by the previous owner of both properties. When he tried to sell to a previous potential buyer, they tried to hammer out a legal agreement around the shared well, and it just wasn’t feasible. The cost of anything approaching a legal agreement about sharing maintenance of the well cost more than putting in two new wells.