• Rolando@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    7 months ago

    You say that ironically, but in the early days of Google its motto was “Do No Evil” and it promoted non-intrusive advertising. There was this sense that Google was a company of engineers and that you could trust them.

    (disclaimer: I didn’t trust them.)

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      7 months ago

      Google was a company of engineers that you could trust, however, like Boeing (which was another “Company of Engineers”) they were slowly replaced by business execs who probably haven’t written a line of code in their life (Save for maybe some VBA for some businessy excel spreadsheet)

      • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        This is why I love FOSS products. You get the advantage of using well engineered code, without the risk of that code falling into the hands of exploitive capitalists.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          7 months ago

          Permissively-licensed stuff (e.g. MIT, BSD) still has that risk. What you really want is copyleft (e.g. GPL) specifically, not just FOSS.

          • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            You can change the license at any point. You just can’t make people change the license of past copies

              • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                gpl does not prevent the owner from changing the licence later. (Unless it is also making use of someone else’s gpl components.)

                For example, Qt has a free version which is under the GPL; and a paid version which is not. So if you were making software with Qt, if you were using the free version, you’d be compelled to also release your product under GPL. But you could then later switch to a paid subscription and rerelease under some other licience if you wanted to.

                • Blisterexe@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  doesnt it require any modified versions of the code be shared, preventing a change to a non-copyleft liscence?

                  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Not if the copyright owner changes the license. When you are the creator you can do what you please. With that being said you can not do that if the public writes code. That’s why you see CLAs (contributor license agreement)