5 ms·

I never understand why people choose MIT when they create something valuable and don't go for AGPL or GPL. Looks good though :D

by omouse 10y ago

nathancahill 10y ago
Maybe they want people to actually use it.
- dom0 10y ago
  Because Software like Wordpress, Drupal, Joomla, Typo3 and so on isn't used?
  - aseipp 10y ago
    Pointing out that a lot of internet runs, in part, thanks to millions of lines of GPL code that people reuse and extend on a daily basis? Well, it isn't allowed, I'm afraid. It breaks the narrative that the GPL is old and busted garbage, you see, and we can't have that going on in these parts. Consider yourself persona non grata #1 with that attitude! It's very simple. It would mean my soapbox wouldn't feel so tall when I speak, and that when I take other peoples code, I might, some day, actually have to give something back as a result. As opposed to just taking it, profiting off it (like ~80% of people who 'eschew' the GPL because they can't make as much money as possible off it) and never doing anything in return. As I'm sure you can understand, those consequences would be utterly devastating. For me. I hope you can fully empathize with my plight, so we can reach a mutual understanding. Preferably in the form of you giving me things with no strings attached.
    - cr0sh 10y ago
      > As opposed to just taking it, profiting off it (like ~90% of people who 'eschew' the GPL because they can't make as much money as possible off it) and never doing anything in return. This right here - though I would extend it to also mention those who take it, extend it, profit off of it, then next-to-never (and many times never) returning any of those changes back to the community. If we're lucky, they contribute something else back (and those contributions are welcomed, mostly) - but never the changes which allowed them to grow and expand well beyond anyone's expectations. We all know who you are. I understand the want to see my code used by "the big guys" (or the "up-and-comers" who become "the big guys"); it does look good on one's CV. At the same time, I also understand Stallman's reasonings and message; he has personal experiences which led to the creation of the GPL and his philosophy on software - and he has been around long enough to see how the corporate world really works when it comes to the lifecycle of software. From the birth of an application or system, to its use and adoption, to its death. Sometimes, its the latter end-of-life phase that we seem to forget about. So often as developers we have to "re-invent the wheel" when had old proprietary software source code been released at EOL, a base to build something better would be in place. Unfortunately, then as now, software has been looked on as an "asset" to be traded and sold for profit, despite the fact that it also depreciates faster than a new car. Yet, like an old Vega, some desperately cling onto that old software hoping to profit "someday, you'll see!". And in many cases, that source code, and even the binaries - suffers the ignoble fate of "bit rot", sitting in a warehouse on an old hard drive (if we're lucky - if not, it's on some old nearly unreadable 7-bit paper tape literally rotting away, in a format used by a computer system that hasn't been turned on - if one even exists and hasn't been scrapped for gold - in over 50 years). Original symbolics LISP? Some of the code behind the Apollo program (heck, and that was government funded!)? Cray Research operating systems, compilers, libraries, etc - for the old Cray supercomputers? This list could be extended nearly forever. The sad thing is, we have lost man-centuries of work in the form of software, due to want-of-profit and bit-rot - and Stallman knows this - we should all know this. Furthermore, even when the code does survive (in whatever form), inevitably, the systems that can run it do not (in general); in some cases, it has become impossible to run code written for certain machines because no examples of those machines, nor their designs (to create an emulator) exist any longer. All we can do is guess at what the program should do (assuming we have at least documentation of the mnemonics and opcodes for the machine language binary to reverse engineer - if you don't have that, nor the real hardware, the binary code might as well be noise). Crazy enough - in some cases we have the machine and the software extant - but only one operating copy of that machine! For example, there's a company in Texas which uses an old IBM accounting machine to this day; it uses punched-cards for it's data input/output, plus it has a printer. It's "programs" are hard-wired plugboards. A computer history museum delegation has begged them to donate the system to a museum for preservation, as it is the last operating example of such a system. But the company has an attitude of "if it ain't broke, why fix it" - and you can't fault them for that. Even so, one day it will break, and likely whomever is in charge will decide to sell it for scrap rather than donate it (due to likely amount of precious metals in the machine) - and that machine, plus all of its programs - will be lost forever. Heck - we treat our automobiles and automotive history with greater respect, and that has had arguably a much lesser impact over the last 100 years, than what computer technology has had over the last 20. /end ranting (and book)
pc86 10y ago
Because MIT is simpler? Because MIT doesn't require any specific license usage in the future?
thomasfedb 10y ago
I use MIT because I want others to use my code. That's all I want for my code. It's a gift. MIT is user-friendly (read: less restrictive).
kbumsik 10y ago
Because people these days want to use open source codes freely, without bothering with License. And people who open projects wants their project more widely used. GPL is too restrictive for new projects.
- cr0sh 10y ago
  All the GPL says, at it's basic core, is that if you incorporate the source code of the software into your source code, you must provide a means for others to get a copy of that extended source code, and they must adhere by the GPL license as well. In other words, if you GPL license your code, and someone else uses it, they need to "pass it on" - in other words, their payment to you (and the community) for using your code is for their changes to be passed back to you (and the community). Code paid for with more code - imagine that. The only restriction is against those who seek to profit (almost) exclusively off the source code, in perpetuity. They want their cake, and to eat as well. The MIT and other similar licenses allow this - they get to take the code, extend it, profit off of it, and never give back the changes that made the system better (and arguably forked it). And if you're lucky, you get mentioned down at the bottom of a copyright/license agreement in 4pt font that's barely readable.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    If you 'incorporate' a piece of GPL code into your program, you're either dynamically or statically linking to it - which the FSF considers to be make your work 'derivative' and thus you would be required to license your own work under the GPL, regardless of whether you had made any changes to the original GPL code you make use of or not.
    - cr0sh 10y ago
      Of course - that's a feature of the GPL - not a bug.
      - CamperBob2 10y ago
        "It only works if everybody does it" is not a feature or a bug, but a recipe for irrelevance at best and coercion at worst.
ohstopitu 10y ago
Since we are talking about licenses, is there a license that is as permissive as MIT but one that requires you to give credit for your work?
- detaro 10y ago
  What do you mean by "give credit"? You have to name the original author with MIT somewhere: <snip> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. </snip>
  - ohstopitu 10y ago
    basically, what I would like is a license that's basically like MIT...but I would want my name + email + tool be listed in the about / licences section of anything created / used with my tools/projects etc.
- chris_7 10y ago
  Also, is there a license that prohibits giving credit, but is otherwise as permissive?
oftenwrong 10y ago
You may create a A/GPL fork of the project if you wish.
flukus 10y ago
I'm all for the GPL, but I still don't understand the licensing and how exactly things work through various linking scenarios. It seems to be a question that if asked 5 times you'll get 7 answers.

I never understand why people choose MIT when they create something valuable and don't go for AGPL or GPL. Looks good though :D

by omouse 10y ago

I never understand why people choose MIT when they create something valuable and don't go for AGPL or GPL. Looks good though :D

nathancahill 10y ago

Maybe they want people to actually use it.

dom0 10y ago
Because Software like Wordpress, Drupal, Joomla, Typo3 and so on isn't used?
- aseipp 10y ago
  Pointing out that a lot of internet runs, in part, thanks to millions of lines of GPL code that people reuse and extend on a daily basis? Well, it isn't allowed, I'm afraid. It breaks the narrative that the GPL is old and busted garbage, you see, and we can't have that going on in these parts. Consider yourself persona non grata #1 with that attitude! It's very simple. It would mean my soapbox wouldn't feel so tall when I speak, and that when I take other peoples code, I might, some day, actually have to give something back as a result. As opposed to just taking it, profiting off it (like ~80% of people who 'eschew' the GPL because they can't make as much money as possible off it) and never doing anything in return. As I'm sure you can understand, those consequences would be utterly devastating. For me. I hope you can fully empathize with my plight, so we can reach a mutual understanding. Preferably in the form of you giving me things with no strings attached.
  - cr0sh 10y ago
    > As opposed to just taking it, profiting off it (like ~90% of people who 'eschew' the GPL because they can't make as much money as possible off it) and never doing anything in return. This right here - though I would extend it to also mention those who take it, extend it, profit off of it, then next-to-never (and many times never) returning any of those changes back to the community. If we're lucky, they contribute something else back (and those contributions are welcomed, mostly) - but never the changes which allowed them to grow and expand well beyond anyone's expectations. We all know who you are. I understand the want to see my code used by "the big guys" (or the "up-and-comers" who become "the big guys"); it does look good on one's CV. At the same time, I also understand Stallman's reasonings and message; he has personal experiences which led to the creation of the GPL and his philosophy on software - and he has been around long enough to see how the corporate world really works when it comes to the lifecycle of software. From the birth of an application or system, to its use and adoption, to its death. Sometimes, its the latter end-of-life phase that we seem to forget about. So often as developers we have to "re-invent the wheel" when had old proprietary software source code been released at EOL, a base to build something better would be in place. Unfortunately, then as now, software has been looked on as an "asset" to be traded and sold for profit, despite the fact that it also depreciates faster than a new car. Yet, like an old Vega, some desperately cling onto that old software hoping to profit "someday, you'll see!". And in many cases, that source code, and even the binaries - suffers the ignoble fate of "bit rot", sitting in a warehouse on an old hard drive (if we're lucky - if not, it's on some old nearly unreadable 7-bit paper tape literally rotting away, in a format used by a computer system that hasn't been turned on - if one even exists and hasn't been scrapped for gold - in over 50 years). Original symbolics LISP? Some of the code behind the Apollo program (heck, and that was government funded!)? Cray Research operating systems, compilers, libraries, etc - for the old Cray supercomputers? This list could be extended nearly forever. The sad thing is, we have lost man-centuries of work in the form of software, due to want-of-profit and bit-rot - and Stallman knows this - we should all know this. Furthermore, even when the code does survive (in whatever form), inevitably, the systems that can run it do not (in general); in some cases, it has become impossible to run code written for certain machines because no examples of those machines, nor their designs (to create an emulator) exist any longer. All we can do is guess at what the program should do (assuming we have at least documentation of the mnemonics and opcodes for the machine language binary to reverse engineer - if you don't have that, nor the real hardware, the binary code might as well be noise). Crazy enough - in some cases we have the machine and the software extant - but only one operating copy of that machine! For example, there's a company in Texas which uses an old IBM accounting machine to this day; it uses punched-cards for it's data input/output, plus it has a printer. It's "programs" are hard-wired plugboards. A computer history museum delegation has begged them to donate the system to a museum for preservation, as it is the last operating example of such a system. But the company has an attitude of "if it ain't broke, why fix it" - and you can't fault them for that. Even so, one day it will break, and likely whomever is in charge will decide to sell it for scrap rather than donate it (due to likely amount of precious metals in the machine) - and that machine, plus all of its programs - will be lost forever. Heck - we treat our automobiles and automotive history with greater respect, and that has had arguably a much lesser impact over the last 100 years, than what computer technology has had over the last 20. /end ranting (and book)

pc86 10y ago

Because MIT is simpler? Because MIT doesn't require any specific license usage in the future?

thomasfedb 10y ago

I use MIT because I want others to use my code. That's all I want for my code. It's a gift. MIT is user-friendly (read: less restrictive).

kbumsik 10y ago

Because people these days want to use open source codes freely, without bothering with License. And people who open projects wants their project more widely used. GPL is too restrictive for new projects.

cr0sh 10y ago
All the GPL says, at it's basic core, is that if you incorporate the source code of the software into your source code, you must provide a means for others to get a copy of that extended source code, and they must adhere by the GPL license as well. In other words, if you GPL license your code, and someone else uses it, they need to "pass it on" - in other words, their payment to you (and the community) for using your code is for their changes to be passed back to you (and the community). Code paid for with more code - imagine that. The only restriction is against those who seek to profit (almost) exclusively off the source code, in perpetuity. They want their cake, and to eat as well. The MIT and other similar licenses allow this - they get to take the code, extend it, profit off of it, and never give back the changes that made the system better (and arguably forked it). And if you're lucky, you get mentioned down at the bottom of a copyright/license agreement in 4pt font that's barely readable.
- stephenr 10y ago
  If you 'incorporate' a piece of GPL code into your program, you're either dynamically or statically linking to it - which the FSF considers to be make your work 'derivative' and thus you would be required to license your own work under the GPL, regardless of whether you had made any changes to the original GPL code you make use of or not.
  - cr0sh 10y ago
    Of course - that's a feature of the GPL - not a bug.
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      "It only works if everybody does it" is not a feature or a bug, but a recipe for irrelevance at best and coercion at worst.

ohstopitu 10y ago

Since we are talking about licenses, is there a license that is as permissive as MIT but one that requires you to give credit for your work?

detaro 10y ago
What do you mean by "give credit"? You have to name the original author with MIT somewhere: <snip> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. </snip>
- ohstopitu 10y ago
  basically, what I would like is a license that's basically like MIT...but I would want my name + email + tool be listed in the about / licences section of anything created / used with my tools/projects etc.
chris_7 10y ago
Also, is there a license that prohibits giving credit, but is otherwise as permissive?

oftenwrong 10y ago

You may create a A/GPL fork of the project if you wish.

flukus 10y ago

I'm all for the GPL, but I still don't understand the licensing and how exactly things work through various linking scenarios. It seems to be a question that if asked 5 times you'll get 7 answers.