Hacker News Reader

Some people always forget that GPL is about the end user's rights, not developer's rights. If a fortune 500 re-implements some GPL library to make proprietary, then by all means. It changes nothing for the GPL code, it's still GPL and its license should guaranty user's rights.

View on HN

But a proprietary fork doesn't change anything for permissively-licenced projects either! The open original is still available, you can still use it and fork it. If it's a popular project, a community-maintained fork will always happen.

As a user, permissive licences give me enough freedom.

> But a proprietary fork doesn't change anything for permissively-licenced projects either!

It just mostly makes them irrelevant by EEE. A permissive license is simply asking for it.

This is true in the short-term. One of the points of the article is that, long-term, proprietary forks are prone to enshittification and/or abandonment, while the open fork just keeps chugging along, maturing, and changing maintainers

Some people also forget that end users are also developers themselves. GPL helps everyone in this way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com