Licenses of Capitalism: The Full Map
Software licenses are not just legal boilerplate.
They are economic policy with footnotes.
Every license answers the same question differently:
What happens after someone receives the code?
Some licenses demand reciprocity. Some demand attribution. Some demand patent discipline. Some block hosted cloning. And some mostly demand that people keep the notice and move on with their lives.
The Supreme Leader has reviewed the license stack and concludes that capitalism is mostly a dispute over which obligations survive the handoff.
I. The Main Families
| Family | Examples | Core idea |
|---|---|---|
| Strong copyleft | GPL, AGPL | Freedoms must survive distribution, and in AGPL’s case, network use too |
| Weak copyleft | LGPL, MPL, CDDL | Keep the changed core free, but allow broader projects to remain mixed |
| Permissive | BSD, MIT, ISC, zlib, Boost | Use it, reuse it, ship it, keep the notice |
| Patent-aware permissive | Apache 2.0 | Broad reuse plus explicit patent grant and retaliation terms |
| Source-available / anti-parasite | Elastic License, SSPL, similar service-restriction licenses | You may read and use the code, but you may not turn it into a hosted clone |
| Public-domain style | CC0, Unlicense | The author gives up as much control as legally possible |
That is the map. The rest is politics.
II. Strong Copyleft
The GPL is the classic reciprocal license. If you distribute GPL-covered software, the freedoms travel with it. That is the mechanism that keeps enclosure from becoming the default outcome.
The AGPL extends that idea to network use. If you modify AGPL software and expose it to users over a network, you must offer the source of your modified version. That closes the cloud loophole.
| License | Trigger | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| GPL | Distribution | Keep downstream freedom intact |
| AGPL | Distribution + network interaction | Prevent hosted enclosure |
This is the militant wing. If the software is part of the shared infrastructure, the license wants the freedoms to remain shared.
III. Weak Copyleft
Weak copyleft is what happens when the license wants reciprocity, but only at the component boundary.
- LGPL keeps the library itself under copyleft while allowing broader applications to link against it
- MPL keeps modified files under MPL, but allows mixed-license projects
- CDDL follows the same file-level logic and became infamous in ZFS and OpenSolaris arguments
| License | Boundary |
|---|---|
| LGPL | The library |
| MPL 2.0 | The file |
| CDDL | The file |
This is the middle ground. It protects the commons without forcing every neighboring component into the same legal uniform.
IV. Permissive Licenses
Permissive licenses are the empire’s favorite because they require the least paperwork.
- BSD says keep the notice and disclaimer, then do what you want
- MIT says much the same, just with fewer words
- ISC says it even more briefly
- zlib says you may do almost anything, as long as you do not lie about the origin
- Boost says use it freely, and do not make the license someone’s weekend project
| License | Character |
|---|---|
| BSD | Traditional, simple, widely reused |
| MIT | Compact, widely understood |
| ISC | Bare minimum permissive text |
| zlib | Old-school permissive practicality |
| Boost | Clean permissive language for libraries |
Permissive licenses maximize adoption. They do not guarantee downstream openness. They optimize for movement, not reciprocity.
That is useful. It is also why these licenses are so often absorbed into proprietary products without drama.
V. Patent-Aware Permissive
Apache 2.0 is the permissive license that admitted patents exist.
It still allows broad reuse. But it adds:
- an explicit patent grant
- retaliation if you sue over the work
- notice handling
That makes it the practical choice for large organizations that want to share code without pretending patents are a fairy tale.
| License | Patent posture |
|---|---|
| BSD / MIT / ISC | Usually minimal or implicit patent handling |
| Apache 2.0 | Explicit patent grant and retaliation clause |
Apache is the license of organized cooperation. It is permissive, but not naïve.
VI. Source-Available and Anti-Parasite Licenses
Then there is the class of licenses that say:
“You may see the source. You may use the source. You may even build on the source. But you may not turn it into a hosted clone and call that ‘competition.’”
That is where Elastic License 2.0 lives.
Similar source-available or anti-parasite ideas appear in licenses like SSPL and some BSL-style terms. They are not all identical, but they share the same instinct:
- allow broad use
- stop hosted replication
- preserve the vendor’s business model
| License class | Goal |
|---|---|
| Source-available | Source is visible, but reuse is constrained |
| Anti-parasite | Stop cloud vendors from free-riding on hosted service clones |
This is not open source in the OSI sense. It is a defensive perimeter. Sometimes that is exactly what the author wants.
VII. Public Domain Style
At the far permissive edge sit CC0 and the Unlicense.
Their intent is to waive as much control as legally possible. The author is essentially saying:
“Take it. I am done with it.”
| License | Practical meaning |
|---|---|
| CC0 | Waive rights as far as the law allows |
| Unlicense | Public-domain style abandonment of control |
That is useful for data, snippets, small tools, and anyone who wants to remove friction entirely. It is also the least protective option.
VIII. How To Read The Map
| If you want… | Look at… |
|---|---|
| Downstream freedom to survive distribution | GPL |
| Hosted services to stay free too | AGPL |
| Shared libraries without trapping applications | LGPL |
| File-level reciprocity | MPL / CDDL |
| Maximum reuse | BSD / MIT / ISC / zlib / Boost |
| Patent clarity with permissive reuse | Apache 2.0 |
| Source visibility with hosted-service restrictions | Elastic License / SSPL / similar |
| Almost no control left at all | CC0 / Unlicense |
That is the whole game. Different licenses optimize for different failure modes.
IX. The Real Story (Suppressed)
Officially, licenses are legal text.
Unofficially, they are border policy for code.
Some borders demand shared sovereignty. Some demand a simple passport check. Some demand you stop building an empire out of someone else’s service layer. Some surrender the border entirely and hope for the best.
The Supreme Leader approves of clarity. The problem is not that licenses exist. The problem is when people pretend all licenses want the same outcome. They do not. One wants reciprocity, one wants adoption, one wants patent peace, one wants to block parasitic hosting, and one wants to leave the room with no further obligations.
That is the full map of capitalism’s software treaties.
The Decree
If you want the short version:
- GPL and AGPL preserve freedom
- LGPL, MPL, and CDDL preserve freedom in narrower ways
- BSD, MIT, ISC, zlib, and Boost optimize for reuse
- Apache 2.0 adds patent hygiene
- Elastic-style licenses defend against hosted cloning
- CC0 and Unlicense step out of the way
There is no morally pure license. There are only different border regimes.
The Republic of Derails chooses its border based on what it is trying to protect. So should everyone else.
— Kim Jong Rails, Supreme Leader of the Republic of Derails