Pragmatists for copyleft, or, corporate hive minds don't accept software licenses
06 August 2017
One of the common oversimplifications in discussing open-source software licenses is that copyleft licenses are "idealistic" while non-copyleft licenses are "pragmatic." But that's not all there is to it.
The problem is that most people redistributing licensed code are doing so in an organizational context. And no human organization is a hive mind where
Instead of treating the downstrem developer's employer as a hive mind, it can be more producive to assume good faith on the part of the individual who intends to contribute to the software, and think about the license from the point of view of a real person.
Releasing source for a derivative work costs time and money. The well-intentioned "downstream" contributor wants his or her organization to make those investments, but he or she has to make a case for them. The presence of copyleft helps steer the decision in the right direction. Jane Hacker at an organization planning to release a derivative work can say, matter-of-factly, "we need to comply with the upstream license" if copyleft is involved. The organization is then more likely to do the right thing. There are always violations, but the license is a nudge in the right direction.
(The extreme case is university licensing offices. University-owned software patents can exclude a graduate student from his or her own project when the student leaves the university, unless he or she had the foresight to build it as a derivative work of something under copyleft.)
Copyleft isn't a magic commons-building tool, and it isn't right for every situation. But it can be enough to push an organization over the line. (One place where I worked had to a do a source release for one dependency licensed under GPLv2, and it turned out to be easist to just build one big source code release with all the dependencies in it, and offer that.)