What's wrong with GPL? How does this fix that?
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
"Wrong" imo is too hard a word. It is just not going far enough by a long shot imo.
Here are main points of the gpl
-
The basic copyleft license that ensures software remains free
-
Requires that any derivative work or software that links to GPL code must also carry the GPL license (hence copyleft)
-
Covers distribution and modification of software
-
Does not have special provisions for network use or library linking
From this article: https://chrisshort.net/micro/gpl-lgpl-agpl/
I sadly cant find any work about the ppl (peer production license) but on the site you can read about it.
It effectively excludes google and co from using your code under that license, same as any company that "employs" people and does profit extraction.
It of course is not the solution to capitalism but it is in lenins avenue of undogmatic methods to sabotage profit extraction and help the working class gain more momentum through massively favoring cooperatives and signletons.
Feel free to point out contradictions that i've missed so far.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is basically GPL + excludes businesses? If so, then I don't think this would be too good of an idea for engineering projects especially robotic ones since such libre/open-source projects from businesses can actually be helpful for technological advancement in general. However, for more personal/entertaining projects, which even if adopted and improved by the businesses as libre/open-source software doesn't actually do anything other than make the business profit (such as games) then this would be a great license for that scenario.
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