We’ve dickered over changing the rules to focus on GPL rather than ‘FOSS Advocates’. -But the thing is; it would confuse some and FOSS advocates are really generally GPL cultists. So, disregard this information when it comes to the rules because the rules are in a way that’s understood to most people.
And we’re going to take a trip down… FOSS is actually ok (but only when defined as we do here)
FOSS world has two incompatible philosophies living under the same umbrella:
1. Permissive FOSS (BSD, MIT, Apache)
- Freedom = you can do anything with the code
- Including: make it proprietary, embed it in commercial products, never contribute back
- Focus: maximizing adoption, interoperability, industry collaboration
- This is the model that powers:
- LLVM
- Rust
- Kubernetes
- Most cloud infrastructure
- Apple, Google, Microsoft’s open‑source strategy
2. Copyleft FOSS (GPL)
- Freedom = you must keep derivatives free
- If you distribute a combined work, you must publish your source
- Focus: preserving openness through enforcement
- It’s “freedom via restriction,” which is philosophically contradictory for many people
Both are legally FOSS.
Permissive licenses give you freedom. GPL gives you obligations.
The GPL is anti-freedom, it does not allow you to:
- build whatever you want
- integrate with whatever you want
- ship whatever you want
- keep your own code private
GPL culture historically treated:
- permissive licenses as “sellouts”
- proprietary extensions as “immoral”
- commercial use as “exploitation”
You can’t mix GPL with:
- App Store distribution
- closed-source drivers
- proprietary libraries
- many cloud deployment models
- embedded systems with NDA’d firmware
The GPL code becomes isolated, not collaborative.
The industry overwhelmingly prefers permissive licensing.
Look at the last 15 years of major infrastructure:
- Go → BSD
- Rust → MIT/Apache
- Swift → Apache
- TensorFlow → Apache
- React → MIT
- VS Code → MIT
- Kubernetes → Apache
- LLVM → Apache
- WebAssembly → Apache
GPL is essentially absent from modern foundational tech.
It’s a relic of a 1990s ideology where “freedom” meant “everyone must share.” Today, freedom means “no one forces you to share.”
If software is truly free, why impose usage restrictions? By imposing restrictions, you’re admitting the software has value -but also declaring the original developer isn’t entitled to monetize that value.
-this is before LLM rewording (my own words):
Certain software becomes practical to make free, and if it’s really free, why bother limiting its use? -By doing that; you’re saying it holds value, but the original dev isn’t entitled to monetize it directly.
(does it matter?)
I agree with everything you said. In particular I agree that not all code needs to be FOSS.
The one thing you didn’t consider in this comment is that the original developer is the one to decide which license they want to distribute their code/binary as. If you (as a developer) don’t think GPL is a good license, you are free to use MIT or any other.
The one situation (A)GPL might give you trouble is if you (as a developer) want to profit off other developers’ code without contributing anything back. GPL forbids that. If you make improvements to (A)GPL software and you sell it, you are not legally allowed to impose additional restrictions to your customers compared to the original software. I can see why you say that’s not freedom.
Of course MIT lets you do that legally. MIT gives more freedom to the developers (or their employers), while GPL gives more freedom to the customers (or the end users).
Both licenses make sense in some contexts imho. A GPL game engine would make little sense, because of course most developers/companies expect not to give much freedom to the end users.
To recap: I understand what you mean, and I agree with all you said. But I think you are mostly framing your argument from a company’s perspective (you say “developer”, but let’s be honest who the legal owner usually is). Personally, I think for some software it doesn’t make sense to trade end users’ freedom for companies’ freedom. For some software, I think only the end users’ freedom matters, and for those softwares, (A)GPL is the right license, imho.
Without ‘legal owners’ or developer friendly licenses, we wouldn’t have the great games or software we have. Much of what Linux had was donated or acquired from previously proprietary software. Quake 3 engine, and Blender are a couple among many. More favor to developers is more incentive.
And I agree that games generally do not need to be GPL. Games are usually self-contained, non-interoperable proprietary software.
Regardless, I applaud companies that decide to open-source their games (or software in general) whether it’s right away or only after EOL.
(Would it be alright if I PM you with a couple questions?)