Article saying we should stop using open source licenses
I don't support this way of thinking because free software and open source licenses have their place:
http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Why-it-s-time-to-stop-using-open-source-licences-1802140.html
I just posted a comment there. I thought Glynn Moody was pretty strong FLOSS advocate, but I dunno. He seems there to be totally all about GitHub, which is proprietary.
I think the one problem is incompatibility. People need to use GPL compatible licenses and just stop using the others because compatibility is a problem, and yes, that means giving up the particular details you want so that you instead are compatible. But then we're free anyway.
But yes, public domain is still free, but the question is whether it is sustainable and robust.
Public domain is fine, but you really use CC0 for that. It means if you are unable to put it into the public domain in some country, you have a permissive license as a backup plan.
Still, I think copyleft is a very useful tool; it can give free software a great advantage. Abandoning it would be a mistake, at least today.
Call me pessimistic if you wish but I foresee the time of companies taking permissively licensed codes, adding a few features and releasing the whole as proprietary programs. t3g is a precursor.
It does not require much work and, unfortunately, people who do not value their freedoms will prefer the proprietary versions and their few additional features. As long as the free versions are developed, the proprietary versions get those developments for free (while the reverse does not hold since the source codes of the proprietary applications are unavailable). Time after time, the proprietary versions get more and more distinctive features, more and more users... that is less ans less users/developers for the free software versions. The proprietary software editors may even manage to hire some developers of the free software versions.
In my opinion, the GNU GPL still is the way to go for the vast majority of applications.
Here you go again. You have this fear because it is under a permisse license that everyone is going to take it and make it proprietary. Everyone is gonna claim the code as their own and the only savior is the GPL with its bearded face and big shiny cape.
Guess what? Apache is under a permissive license and used all over and people contribute code because they want to and are not forced to. The other web server, nginx, is also under a permissive license and its marketshare is growing by the day.
The point is that people will contribute to a big project if they think it is worthwhile whether it is BSD or GPL. If they find value in it, they will contribute back. I would think that most programmers these days know the value in the original project and would rather contribute code back to Apache and make it better than forking it on their own and maintaining it within a company.
If they are that talented and get accepted to contribute code back to Apache, then they are making the strides to contribute code back whether the license is permissive or not. Its just that modern times have pushed the developers towards the permissive licenses more than the GPL because they find it less restrictive and feel more comfortable contributing back.
You have this fear because it is under a permisse license that everyone is going to take it and make it proprietary.
Not "everyone" but you are included among the bad guys who want to subjugate their users at a lower cost (please, spare us the hypocritical "real freedom" talk this time). I never ever want to see my work helping proprietary software developer subjugating their users. Not even once. The copyleft does that.
What is the great advantage of non-copylefted licenses? I mean: besides helping proprietary software developers (which is only good when pushing a standard)? As a developer you cannot even take advantage of the huge amount of GPL code that is available (because, like it or not, but the GNU GPL remains, by far, the most popular software license). In what way is it "less restrictive" (as you write)? Again I only see proprietary derivatives as an answer. That does not make me "feel more comfortable".
Eh, let's start using Free Software licenses then.
Hehe, I couldn't resist.
I see the article talking about the supposed "declined" of copyleft.
This is a good talk to listen to on the subject, entitled "Is Copyleft Being Framed?"