I ask this because I think of the recent switch of Ubuntu to the Rust recode of the GNU core utils, which use an MIT license. There are many Rust recodes of GPL software that re-license it as a pushover MIT or Apache licenses. I worry these relicensing efforts this will significantly harm the FOSS ecosystem. Is this reason to start worrying or is it not that bad?
IMO, if the FOSS world makes something public, with extensive liberties, then the only thing that should be asked in return is that people preserve these liberties, like the GPL successfully enforces. These pushover licenses preserve nothing.
I wonder if a dual-licensed non-commercial + paid commercial approach could work, but from my experience with FOSS developers, they tend to view non-commercial licenses as sacrilege…
Well yeah, that’s not really FOSS, right?
In their eyes, probably not… but you can’t have it both ways. Either you let companies take advantage of you, or you don’t…
From what I see, there’s not much that can be done over here.
You either use GPL Licensing and then look for other ways to get money (because only FOSS people will pay you when they don’t have to and there aren’t many of them, as compared to the population) or you use a non-FOSS license and eventually get bought by a corporate entity to get money, then get your project enshittified.
Of course, you can say that you won’t do that, but after how many of them have gone back on similar claims, it can be hard to get others to trust you.
Also, if (when) your project starts getting in the way of large corporations and their money and they realise you don’t sellout, you can expect them to start coming after your livelihood. And how many people do you think, would play chicken with them?