# Why do I use copyleft-licensed software?  | 27th March 2025

*This blog post is an extract of a discussion where I explain why I use copyleft-licensed software.*

In an email conversation, someone wrote to me:

> I'd be interested to hear you explain why – I read your site and agreed
> with much that was on this blog. I couldn't immediately understand the 'why',
> perhaps I was looking in the wrong place.

Maybe the 2 reasons I tend to use copyleft-licensed software could be: 

First reason: 

- when I use an application, I tend to think that I contribute to that application, and that if I become dependent on it, so I don't want it to be taking away from me.

Second reason: 

- I tend to think that copyleft-licenses are a mechanism against the asymmetry of power between controllers of software/applications and users.

I'll elaborate on both points, and also mention some of the limitations.

#### When you use an application, you contribute to the success of that application

I think of my usage of a software as a contribution to that software or
application - I think of usage as contribution because, say, Facebook
would not exist without users.
Users of Facebook make Facebook possible.
No users, no Facebook.

Then, I am thinking that if I contribute to something, and if I become dependent on this something for my everyday life, for my business for example, I want to have
some agency over it.  

I don't want this thing to be taken away from me; it's costly to build something, and then lose it.

I always have this example in mind: a calendar application I used to use, Sunrise Calendar, that got acquired and then shut down.

An example of a calendar application can sound trivial, but you can think of that would mean for a business.

Sunrise became successful - because it had acquired half a million
users, and then, because it was successful, it was acquired by
Microsoft, and then shut down. 

Users, who had made Sunrise successful, were left with no application. 

This is an extract from the last blog post the team behind Sunrise published to users[1]:

> One last note to let you know that we’re moving on for good to Outlook and
> shutting down the Sunrise apps 
>
> [...]
>
> Tomorrow, you will be logged out of your account.
>
> [...]
>
> We’d like to extend a final and massive thank you to all of you who’ve
> supported us along the way. It’s been a hell of a ride. We really hope you
> enjoyed those years we spent together as much as we did. 
>
> With lots of love, 
> 
> The Sunrise team 

You might think of other examples; in my case I also remember using Mailbox which was
acquired by Dropbox and then shut down.
Skype is another example some might remember.

So now, if I start using a software or any digital tool, I am thinking:

am I contributing to something which can be taken away from me? 

Permissive licenses help but don't prevent the maintainer from turning a
software proprietary, as far as I understand - so copyleft acts against this.
The source code of a copyleft-licensed software will remain freely
distributed.[2]

*Copyleft isn't a panacea though.*

Also, I am reluctant to use software that are copyleft-licensed, like Signal
Messenger, yet are walled-gardens. 
To me, lack of interoperability is an issue.
I don't want to get trapped in a walled-garden, so I don't use Signal for that
reason, even though it's copyleft, and end-to-end encrypted and collect very
little metadata.[3]

It's too much power in the hand of a few people, the CEO of Signal and a board probably.

And that's also why I think copyleft helps: it's a mechanism against
asymmetry of power between controllers of software and users.

#### Copyleft: a mechanisms against asymmetry of power

We, as users, adopt software and sometimes tend to become dependent on it, to
run our business or keep in touch with our family for example  - maintainers of these software we are dependent upon
then suddenly have a lot of power: they control a software which we can no longer
exist without. 

With proprietary software, users have little leverage to keep the hubris of providers in check; they can sell the software, get it shut down, and leave users with nothing; or they can govern what people can and cannot do *etc*. Zuckerberg and other CEOs of
large technology providers have little counter-power against them; head of states
meet them face-to-face - I am not saying it's bad or good, but they get
stronger as users become dependent on their tools. 

Relying on software whose source code is freely distributed, for me, as a user,
is a way to know that there are some mechanisms in place to keep the hubris of
maintainers (controllers of software) in check: if maintainers act in a way that displease users, then users can fork, and
carry on using a software on their own terms. 
Audacity, an audio editor, is an example. Maintainers joined a corporate (the corporate now maintains Audacity), users forked and created Tenacity.

So, in a way, I think of freely
distributed software as a mechanism to re-balance the asymmetry of power there
is between users and controllers of software.

[1] You can find this blog post in full on archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20170317060955if_/http://blog.sunrise.am/

[2] Although there are examples of copyleft-licensed software that later
became non-free. 
There is a Wikipedia page about it which I can't find right now.
How a company can switch from a copyleft-licensed software to proprietary is still unclear to me. 

[3] MM and others will answer by saying that if Signal is built this way (as a walled-garden - my own words) that's for the security of users; that's another question we could discuss: "*What do we mean by security?*"  

*Thanks to David, maintainer of blot.im, for asking me this question in the first place.*