i don't know... i could be way off base but MIT and BSD allow devs to FORK the code and turn it into proprietary code throwing all benefits of "open source" into the wind. "enterprise friendly" is often mixed up but the reality is the end user ends up on the short end of the stick..
Whether this is good or bad, depends on your point of view, and is very newanced.
For example I can use OPENSSL (MIT licensed) in a proprietary system, but I would argue that is better for end users than not. Having a few solid libraries in play is arguably better than a multitude of home-grown closed commercial libraries.
OSI is clearly not FSF. FSF persues a future with no proprietary software. That's a necessary stance for someone to have in the world, it sets a goal post. OSI seeks to make code that has maximal utility by being useful in open and closed environments.
MIT does not prevent companies contributing code, it does not hold back a project in any way, it just makes the code more widely spread and more "utilitarian".
Edit: so it does not eliminate "all" the benefits of Open source, it may remove some of them. Alternatively it may be a net gain if the software is actually used more.
Technically, yes, a company can fork OPENSSL, add features to it, and ship it closed. But why would they? Certainly if the did they remove no utility from openssl for everyone else.
Equally SQLite has a public domain license and that does not seem to have hurt it in any way. There are plenty of contributers etc.
You can use LGPL libraries in proprietary software.
> MIT ... makes the code more widely spread and more "utilitarian"
Not for the end users and for developers that want to modify existing software. The "utility" is lost.
> a company can fork OPENSSL, add features to it, and ship it closed. But why would they?
It happens every day. Weak licenses allow freeloading.
> Equally SQLite has a public domain license and that does not seem to have hurt it in any way.
That's not the right metric. The people who are being hurt are developers and users who cannot buy a truly open phone/smartwatch/router/tv/car even if such devices are built on OSS.
on the same vein, the same dev works on GPL code and he/she knows the virality of GPL makes it that no one can slap proprietary license on any fork of his work and he/she, if they became the customers of any forks, they CAN expect and demand source, completing the feedback loop.
Software licenses, and any other work under copyright law, cannot "infect" other works. It's not Covid.
If I draw Mickey Mouse on my hand I might be in breach of Disney's copyright and I might be required to wash it away. It does not mean that my hand magically becomes Disney's property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license
either you are off base or you need to learn stuff
Not to mention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Viral_license#False/Misle...
Some choose GPL because they value freedom over utility. Others choose say MIT because they value something else.
Naturally all open licenses (free and open source) allow anyone to take that code, compile it, and sell it. This is not a bug, this is a feature.
If the one selling the code makes changes to it, or augments it in some way, and assuming they follow the terms of the license, this is all good. The original author is getting exactly what they hoped for since that's why they chose that license in the first place.
In exactly the same way users make a choice about what software to use. They can choose something proprietary like iOS or something more open like Android. They can choose to use Android coupled to Google services, or not.
I get the goal that the FSF has of making users care enough to only use Free software. That is a noble goal, and we need a organisation that sets that goal.
Equally with hardware they can, and should, champion the cause of completely open hardware.
They are successful not just when all hardware is open, they are successful by making it part of the conversation. It took software 40 odd years or so for Open to become mainstream. It'll take some time for the hardware case to reach some form of critical mass.
And as far as I can tell their methods are subpar for today. This in no way means that they didn't work well in the past. Or didn't do a lot of good things in the past. But times change.
And I'm also not saying they are not useful today anymore, I'm saying their methods don't work well anymore and could lead to them becoming increasingly irrelevant and powerless which would be a loss of all consumers and most developers.
If however you look at software as a whole, and compare today to say the early 80's, then you might note that the landscape is very different and wonder how that happened.
Today software exists unler a multitude of licenses, written by innumerable authors. A huge fraction of all software is either open, or built on open.
While Open Source and Free Software are different idealogically, they ultimately, broadly, confer the same freedoms on users.
That any of this exits _at all_ is thanks to the FSF - they won the war a long time ago. They are the very definition of success. A success that so many take for granted that we now wonder if they are useful anymore.
Hint: they are.