one of the frequent justifications for GPL-style licenses over MIT-style ones is that they prevent some type of, as far as I can tell, "enclosure"
GPL proponents describe a scenario in which a non-GPL-licensed project can be "taken" by a commercial organisation and made proprietary
I do not understand how this can happen, or how the GPL prevents it
copyleft Afficher plus
@Angle well, I mean, we saw how well that went down
but I'm unconvinced that twitter's bad behaviour has much to do with their ownership of the Twitter software; in fact, large parts of Twitter are themselves open source. capital and infrastructure are more important imo