• Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately not enough. It still allows corporate use with limited restrictions. Only derivative work that gets distributed must be open sourced, and even then, they can choose to provide source only to those requesting it in inconvenient ways (ex: come pick up the flash drive from our office).

    For example, android does not require open sourcing, despite GPL'd Linux, but because it's not derivative work.

    • Joe Bidet@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with the geneal idea that one could do even more than what the GPL does, but i think it does a lot already.

      On the case of Android, i think Google doesn't care too much about the kernel code itself, wouldn't mind contributing back to it if they had to, as the entire ecosystem of software around the kernel is what they use to capture users and keep control of their devices… GGL doesnt need the kernel for that, and the linux kernel is a smol drop of code in the ocean of a prison that is android…

      See how Google is adverse to the use of the AGPL in their own products https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html this would in practice force them to reveal to their users how they process their data, and would probably scare them to death…

      So I am not a proponent of copyright, but it seems that GPL and AGPL are pretty effective tools at discouraging corporations in some cases (not perfect though)