2 ms·
> MIT-alike licenses provide more freedom for the final user There is this freedom for end users to modify and run software, sort of anti lock in freedom. And
by zzzcpan 8y ago
> MIT-alike licenses provide more freedom for the final user
There is this freedom for end users to modify and run software, sort of anti lock in freedom. And there is this corporate freedom allowing corporations to restrict freedoms of end users and lock them in. The second one is what MIT-alike enables. It doesn't make sure end users keep any freedom at all. So the choice is to either restrict corporations or let corporations restrict users. Letting corporations restrict users also lets them capture all profits and make sure original creators won't be able to compete with them.
No matter how you look at it, the idea of unrestricted use for corporations will die. Startups, small companies, independent creators are either going to switch to restrictive licenses or won't be able to sustain development and abandon it. Things could have been different if tech companies weren't allowed to get so big.
- antt 8y agoYou are getting very close to the only idea I think makes sense. A license that is only to be granted to human beings. You can use, distribute, copy, modify and sell my software to your hearts content as long as you are doing it on the behalf of a single human being. If you are doing it for a legal entity of any description, you need to start paying license fees.