Seeing big companies take advantage of BSD or MIT licensed projects without sharing their contributions will always pain me. - eviltoast
  • Suzune@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    At the moment large companies sponsor the development, without being forced to do so. And they allow developers to spend time on the project for free.

    The foundation also makes sure that devs sign an agreement otherwise the code is not accepted.

    So where is this all proprietary?

    • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because on Linux the vast majority of its users run a complete operating system under the GPL, meanwhile on FreeBSD the vast majority of people use a proprietary dirivitive. Also significantly more companies sponsor Linux and it’s not even comparable.

      • Suzune@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you think about how many people use proprietary Android by Google, it is exactly comparable.

        Comparing numbers is pointless here. Fact is that GPL has more conditions when you’re allowed to use and modify the code. More conditions means more restrictions. And this means, less freedom.

        • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It means less freedom for developers but has proved that it provides more freedom for users. Does MacOS have an open source version? No but ChromeOS and Android do (ChromiumOS and ASOP respectively). Even when companies make a proprietary fork of Linux they still contribute massively in terms of code, not just money.