4 ms·
Licenses like MIT don't give "the most possible freedom". I am not more free to modify and repair the software running on an iPhone despite the plethora of BSD
by yarrel 8y ago
Licenses like MIT don't give "the most possible freedom". I am not more free to modify and repair the software running on an iPhone despite the plethora of BSD and other permissive licenses on it than I am on a laptop running GNU/Linux under the GPL.
Likewise if you want to commercially exploit some MIT-licensed software that I have modified and am selling binaries of, you are not more free to commercially exploit that than you would be under the GPL.
Copyleft doesn't "force" the "opening" of "source" on anyone. It's a pragmatic measure covering existing software in order to ensure recipients of that software are free to use it as they wish.
The GPL doesn't limit utility. You are confusing use value and exchange value. The GPL ensures that software retains its utility for its users.
All that said, if you want to give all your software to users under the MIT or Apache licenses knock yourself out.
- SpicyLemonZest 8y agoThe LGPL works as you're describing; I can license my own code however I want, as long as I let people freely modify all the LGPL libraries it links in. The GPL proper is very deliberately viral.
- robocat 8y agoThe LGPL is fine for libraries - but that limits where it can be used. I think the LGPL becomes something just like the GPL for scripting languages because there is no "linking" for many languages. For example an npm package for nodejs can't be made into a "library" - all the source is "compiled" together at runtime.
- cyphar 8y agoIf you can replace an LGPL component with a changed version then you don't need to license any additional code under the LGPL. Shared libraries are just one mechanism for doing this.