this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2025
5 points (100.0% liked)
FLOSS (Free/Libre and Open-Source Software)
70 readers
3 users here now
This is a community for everything FLOSS
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I see your point. I think the discussion about this topic needs to go far deeper than this.
The gpl itself precludes you to use for example my foss code in your e.g. ms windows OS. Lets say i make a new calculator that is compatible with windows.
Under MIT, they can iirc just integrate my code in windows and be done with it.
Under GPL, windows would need to become open source.
But ubuntu for exmaple could include my code in their OS without paying me.
Under the ppl, they couldnt. In all cases where they "cant" they would need to seek me out and talk to me about money.
A singleton coder who wants to change my software and sell it themselves would be allowed to do so, same goes for cooperatives.
(Sidenotr: I'm not sure about their obligations towards me though. That could be an issue because you make money, you share, period.)
Insofar, in my analysis so far, the ppl is just a further escalation of the gpl towards the goal of owning the means of production.
I get that. Sounds like a good idea. However, what about co-operative non-profit use? Paying for non-profit use seems counter-intuitive and restrictive. Also, do the people using the code have to put their software as ppl?
As i said, collectives and singletons can use it for free. Non profit is of course included.
Yes, of course if they want to use your software they need to ship the software containing it under the same license, same as gpl. Otherwise google could make a nonprofit they control (ie mozilla) and relicense your sw to make it available for profit extraction.
Thanks for the clarification. It does sound like a good license