[palata]

But by doing that, you don't protect the users. If a commercial entity writes software that depends on e.g. an LGPL library. Then I as a user totally benefit from the fact that is it LGPL. Maybe it can even allow me to update the dependency myself, be it for security reasons, or for compatibility reasons (I could patch something in the library that would make the whole project work on my machine).

By not using copyleft, you make it easier for others to make proprietary products with your code. But is that what you want? As a user, are you happier with a proprietary Windows or an open source Linux?

[AlienRobot]

I prefer Windows, actually.

I think the problem with this argument is that you think the user wants the source code. I agree that would be great ideologically but 99.999% of the people using computers couldn't care less. Not just non-developers but even the best programmers would rather just pay money to not have to fix someone else's bugs. Nobody wants to waste their time replacing libraries. They just want to use software. If we're being pragmatic about what is good "for the user" then the best thing for the user is that there are as few obstacles as possible for developers to create products for the users to use.

If we consider the dichotomy of use the viral license or make no software, then the user will always prefer to have software that exists in proprietary form than having no software at all. If a company doesn't like GPL, they'll simply not use GPL code, and maybe not using GPL means their product is not viable anymore because they have to rewrite everything themselves, and now something that was going to be made isn't going to be made because they can't get free labor. Is that good? According to GPL and FOSS, yes. According to the user that wanted to use that piece of software, no.

I have to add this feels so awkward because every time there's a thread about AI you'll find someone saying that the fact that data is copy-able renders copyright a thing of the past, and then you turn around and you see GPL and no-no-no-no-NO! You want to copy MY source code, my LABOR, and use it for free in your proprietary products? That's completely unfair! And next week there's a new OpenAI lawsuit and everyone's like "if you didn't want to get scrapped, shouldn't have posted it on the internet." It's so awkward.

[palata]

> I think the problem with this argument is that you think the user wants the source code.

I want the source code, so I want developers to push for copyleft. I am a developer, so I push for copyleft on my end, for the others who want the source code like me.

> even the best programmers would rather just pay money to not have to fix someone else's bugs

I regularly need to patch some (open source) software I use. I probably couldn't pay for it (not sure if anyone would fix it for me), so I don't have a choice. The proprietary alternative is that I just can't have the damn software fixed.

> If we're being pragmatic about what is good "for the user" then the best thing for the user is that there are as few obstacles as possible for developers to create products for the users to use.

When you make it as easy as possible for developers, you end up with ElectronJS crap and similar. With proprietary protocols, nobody can write a different client (e.g. to make it more accessible). I don't consider this good for the user.

> If a company doesn't like GPL, they'll simply not use GPL code, and maybe not using GPL means their product is not viable anymore

First, there is not only GPL. The weakest copyleft I know is MPLv2, which requires to share the modified files. If a company's product is not viable under those conditions, then that product is simply worthless.

Second, as an open source developer, I don't really give a shit if another company that is not paying me is not viable with my copyleft license. I am not working to help them make money while making the world less convenient for me.

> I have to add this feels so awkward because every time there's a thread about AI you'll find someone saying that the fact that data is copy-able renders copyright a thing of the past

It's not weird: I don't want AI to train from my code without permission. BigTech can abuse my licenses because they are too powerful for me to do anything about it. It's just a shameful workaround, and I am hoping that new licenses will come out that explicitly forbid ML training, so that I can update my licenses.

> everyone's like "if you didn't want to get scrapped, shouldn't have posted it on the internet."

I surely don't say that. People who say that have no idea how copyright works, there is nothing worth discussing there.