Licence is MIT / Apache, of course.

EDIT: of course the relicensing is the problem here. Alas we’re in an all-time low interest in Free and Open Source politics, ideologies, and organization so the Big Evil Corpos continue to do their thing, one cog per time.

    • InFerNo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      5 days ago

      That license allows you to take the source, make changes and keep them to yourself. Which is not in the spirit of open source imho.

      • verdare@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Permissive licenses also allow corporations to build off of open source software without giving anything back to public. I don’t see why they’re entitled to profit off the free labor of a community they don’t contribute back to.

        • AppleMango@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          While it does seem that way initially, strict copyleft licences can often do more harm than good. Projects need companies to use their software so that it becomes popular and get funding. There’s a reason why there’s barely any AGPL (or adjacent) licenced projects compared to GPL or MIT.