Copyleft licenses are not “restrictive”
Argues that copyleft software licenses are not inherently more restrictive than permissive ones, challenging a common misconception in open source.
Argues that copyleft software licenses are not inherently more restrictive than permissive ones, challenging a common misconception in open source.
A critique of Contributor License Agreements (CLAs) in open source, arguing they allow companies to later make projects proprietary.
Analysis of Apollo Federation's license change from MIT to Elastic, arguing it's anti-FOSS and corporate gaslighting.
Critique of the Commons Clause, arguing it creates nonfree software while dishonestly using open source terminology.