I'm a very much pro free software person and I used to think that GPL is basically the only possible option when it comes to benefits for free software (and not commercial use), but I've recently realised this question is actually much more ambiguous.

I think there are two sides to this issue:

GPL forces all contributions to stay open-source which prevents commercialisation* of FOSS projects, but also causes possible interference of corporate software design philosophy and all kinds of commercial decisions, if contributions come from companies.
MIT-like permissive licenses, on the other hand, easily allow for making proprietary forks, which, however, separates commercial work from the rest of the project, therefore making the project more likely to stay free both of corporate influence and in general.

So it boils down to the fact, that in my opinion what makes free software free is not only the way it's distributed but also the whole philosophy behind it: centralisation vs. decentralisation, passive consumer vs. co-developper role of the user etc. And this is where things start to be a bit controversial.

What do you think?

*UPD: wrong word. I mean close-sourcing and turning into a profitable product instead of something that fulfils your needs

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

To me, freedom is about the mode of production. I think people would be actually free if the very act of creating something were fulfilling on its own because of its creative manner. In that case you wouldn't need anything in exhange, and distributing your work for free wouldn't be a sacrifice, so there would be no problem if somebody decided to sell it.

I think exactly here is the crucial difference to the GPL and the rights it is concerned about: The GPL is concerned with the rights of the users. The reason for this is that closed-source and non-free software turns into a means of control that affects the sphere and rights of the users. A few examples:

email services which scan your private messages for advertising - or controlling you in a police state
operating systems which upload most of your data to the vendor's cloud, including passwords
applications and whole operating systems which are carefully designed to be very distracting, for example because this allows to use advertising or maximizes time spent with a service
printer drivers which only allow to buy expensive ink cartridges made by the printers vendor and waste ink on top of that
scanner drivers which stop to work after an OS upgrade, so that you have to buy a new scanner because the company will not give you any software update for the driver
printers which print tiny yellow dots on each page to identify stealthly who was printing it
web apps that are choke-full with dark patterns that manipulate you into allowing things you don't want.
trains that stop working if they are maintained by another company than the one that produced their software
digital hearing aids which are locked to the chain that sold it so their owners can't let maintain and repair them elsewhere
phone apps that track your location and send it to companies and state organizations

these problems are what the GPL and copyleft licenses address, and the reason why systems like Linux are much more user-friendly.

Oh, and in respect to the artists: Yes, many do art because they need to do that. And this is all the time blatantly exploited by companies. And companies try to exploit open source developers in the same way.