Introducing SoftwareCompare: Objective data to find software that fits your needs!

[anonymous261]

@RoyalOughtness

That would be a misinterpretation. Copyleft and permissive licenses are both foss and both permit users the same freedoms required under FOSS definitions

@RoyalOughtness

Permissive licensing doesn’t mean someone can just take your code and make it proprietary. Code released under a FOSS license is FOSS forever, whether it’s copyleft or not.

I am aware of both things, and it wasn’t a misinterpretation. Although permissive licenses do directly uphold the same freedoms as copyleft ones, copyleft ones have the potential to protect those freedoms by preventing forks from messing with those freedoms. MINIX upheld FOSS definition freedoms, but Intel didn’t. Now Intel ME is everywhere and people aren’t too fond of it.

@jonah

If Intel ME was open source, and people could build and install it with their own keys, it wouldn’t actually be an issue. Intel ME enables some useful functionality. This is how virtually all other important security mechanisms work (e.g. Secure Boot), and there’s no reason Intel ME should be any different.

In the case of copyleft, I could say “I can trust that forks of this project won’t disrespect FOSS freedoms”. It gives assurance that someone’s contributions won’t be used by forks in a proprietary way. If I contribute to Chromium, I contribute to Chrome, Edge, and Opera, which I may not necessarily trust.

It doesn’t necessarily ensure the core project itself won’t turn proprietary if there is a CLA (okay I may be misunderstanding this part), but it can complement a good track record of FOSS committal.