←back to thread

Libxml2's "no security embargoes" policy

(lwn.net)
278 points jwilk | 1 comments | 25 Jun 25 19:36 UTC | HN request time: 0.237s | source
Show context
kibwen ◴[25 Jun 25 22:01 UTC] No.44382195[source]▶
> Ariadne Conill, a long-time open-source contributor, observed that corporations using open source had responded with ""regulatory capture of the commons"" instead of contributing to the software they depend on.

I'm only half-joking when I say that one of the premier selling points of GPL over MIT in this day and age is that it explicitly deters these freeloading multibillion-dollar companies from depending on your software and making demands of your time.

replies(4): >>44382211 #>>44383593 #>>44385565 #>>44385638 #
c2h5oh ◴[26 Jun 25 09:08 UTC] No.44385565[source]▶
With SAAS swallowing big chunk of software business GPL is much less effective.

There isn't much difference between MIT and GPL unless you are selling a product that runs locally or on premisses and with the latter some companies try to work around GPL by renting servers with software on it - either as physical boxes or something provided on cloud provider marketplace.

Look at what you actually have installed on your computer - odds are that unless your job requires something like CAD, photo/video editing or other highly specialized software you have nothing made by large enterprise with exception of OS and Slack/Teams/Zoom.

replies(1): >>44386530 #
1. toyg ◴[26 Jun 25 11:57 UTC] No.44386530[source]▶
> With SAAS swallowing big chunk of software business GPL is much less effective.

Which is why we have the AGPL.