1. 6
  1.  

  2. 2
    GPL is the Best Licence

    The GPL protected the community by forcing RoboVM to release the code for the final version before the bitcode migration.

    No, it was RoboVM’s own decision to release their code under the GPL. They could have chosen any licence, and they could have chosen to keep their code proprietary. If RoboVM had released the final FOSS version of their code under the MIT licence, then the community would still have this version available as FOSS for modification and forking. Nothing magic about the GPL here.

    The only time the GPL forces you to release source code is when you release binaries compiled from somebody else’s GPL code. Then you have to provide the source code for the binaries. If the binaries only contain your code that you own (along with 3rd party code that isn’t copylefted), then it is your decision whether to release your source code or not, and when you release your code, you can choose what licence to use.

    The GPL does not take away your agency or your ownership of your own code. It only controls what your are allowed to do with third party code that you don’t own and that is distributed under the GPL.

    1. 1

      The GPL protected the community by forcing RoboVM to release the code for the final version before the bitcode migration

      I don’t understand this. They were the copyright holders (I presume, at least: they were able to change the license to something proprietary) and so weren’t bound by the license. The fact that they could make the next release proprietary is evidence of this. If they had used any other license, they would still have been able to do this.

      The company was bought by Xamarin and promptly discontinued as the latter was purchased by Microsoft. Without the GPL, the code might have been inaccessible. It also forced 3rd parties to publish their code.

      If we’re dreaming hypotheticals, then here’s an alternative: if the code had been permissively licensed then another company might have picked it up and maintained the last permissively licensed version. Which of these is more likely? No idea.

      I think that we as a community should prefer a license that preserves community rights as opposed to corporate rights

      This is a misconception. The GPL protects the rights of people who receive the code, it does not protect the rights of the ‘community’. Google was able to take Linux, add a load of custom stuff, and use it as the back end for their entire fleet of machines running their search engine and ad business, without sharing their improvements with ‘the community’. The GPL required them to provide the source code to anyone that they gave binaries to, but they didn’t distribute binaries. AGPL tries to close this perceived loophole but comes with a lot more compliance complications.