3 ms·
I was with you until the end of your comment: > llvm + clang is actually open source (more open) via a MIT license instead of gpl How is a license that allows
by callinyouin 8y ago
I was with you until the end of your comment:
> llvm + clang is actually open source (more open) via a MIT license instead of gpl
How is a license that allows someone or some corporation to take some code, add to it, and make those additions proprietary "more open" than a license that specifically disallows that type of scenario? The GPL ensures that derived code stays open while MIT does not. In my eyes, that's "actually open source". I can see the argument that licenses like MIT allow consumers of some piece of code more freedom to do as they please, but that hardly makes it more open.
- protomyth 8y agoHow is a license that allows someone or some corporation to take some code, add to it, and make those additions proprietary "more open" than a license that specifically disallows that type of scenario? This gets argued all the time. What the corporation did was freedom for them not the code. GPL protects the code, MIT/BSD protects the people. Depending on your definition of "freedom" you will prefer one over the other.
- wtetzner 8y agoGPL protects the freedom of the users of the software.
- protomyth 8y agoIt protects the code which happens to protect the users, but it doesn't let people do whatever they want with the code. Which you prefer is up to you. Using the word freedom is just problematic when there are restrictions.
- nuclearburrito 8y agoThe GPL's aim is keep openness for the end user as well as developers. BSD/MIT, etc. is aimed squarely for the benefit of developers. I far and away prefer GPL3 over anything else. I'm somewhat disappointed the Linux kernel and important tool chain programs are still under GPL2. I'm not an RMS fanboy by any stretch, but in the end, his views on the overarching concerns of GPL licensing and free/libre software are usually born out as true.