Vitalik shifts to a copyleft license strategy — a major shift in open-source philosophy

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has made a significant shift in his thinking regarding the nature of software licensing. Previously supportive of developers freely using and distributing code, he has now moved toward advocating for more restrictive “copyleft” licenses. According to a report by The Block, Buterin recently discussed his new licensing strategy in a blog post, noting that the rapid competition within the crypto industry has prompted this change.

Why is a review of licensing strategies urgent now?

In the past, Buterin was cautious about restrictive licenses such as CC-BY-SA and GPL. The traditional open-source philosophy tended to favor lenient licenses that allow developers to use and redistribute code without restrictions. However, with major companies like Google and Huawei mainstreaming open-source code and leveraging it for profit, the landscape has shifted. Under these circumstances, simply relying on “goodwill” for open-sourcing makes it difficult to preserve the original value of the code, Buterin recognizes.

How copyleft licenses work and the logic of “countering copyright with copyright”

Buterin’s preferred copyleft approach stipulates that derivative works must also be released under the same license when created and distributed. In other words, if someone creates a derivative work based on the publicly available code, that new work must also be published under the same licensing conditions. While this may seem restrictive at first glance, Buterin’s goal is different. He maintains a stance opposed to the copyright system itself but employs a strategic approach of “countering copyright with copyright.” Essentially, he is using the framework of copyright law in a reverse manner to control the continuous open status of derivative works.

The shift driven by the rapid competition in the crypto industry

The crypto sector is now experiencing unprecedented levels of competition. Corporate profit motives have taken precedence, and idealistic hopes for open-source development are no longer realistic. Buterin argues that simply “pleading” for open-source code to be shared is insufficient; legal “strict measures” are necessary. This means that the initial developer who releases open-source code should retain certain access rights. This shift is not merely a change in licensing but a redefinition of the philosophical foundation of the open-source movement itself.