4 ms·

That's because you're seeing the results of the license from the perspective of the developer, not the user.

by knocte 7y ago

millstone 7y ago
For a user who is not a software developer, what is the practical difference between GPL and MIT? Is there one?
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  > For a user who is not a software developer, For a reader who is not a journalist, what is the value of free speech? Is there one?
  - andrerm 7y ago
    The day a journalist loses free speech is the day a reader loses it too. So the value is the same for both.
    - diffeomorphism 7y ago
      I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. Both losing it at the same time does not say anything about the value? Devil's advocate: The journalist loses his job and livelihood. I had nothing to say anyways. Clearly to him it had much more value. I obviously agree that free speech is valuable for everyone (and so is free software), but how do you best explain why?
- mackrevinack 7y ago
  disclaimer: im a noob when it comes to licences so someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong a company can take something that is MIT licensed and make part of their closed source application. or they could start out as open source project and then later decide to close source it. with GPL they could do pretty much the same thing, but the only caveat is they would have to share back any improvements they make to the parts that were gpl licenced. the first example would cut off a user from being able to access the source and modify it themselves or even worse they might have to start paying a fee to use it. although I think a company can still charge a fee even if they are using something that is under gpl, but with this scenario people are free to take the source and use it in another project if they wish. if an MIT licence was used then that company is under no obligation to share any improvements they make

4 ms·

That's because you're seeing the results of the license from the perspective of the developer, not the user.

by knocte 7y ago

That's because you're seeing the results of the license from the perspective of the developer, not the user.

millstone 7y ago
For a user who is not a software developer, what is the practical difference between GPL and MIT? Is there one?
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  > For a user who is not a software developer, For a reader who is not a journalist, what is the value of free speech? Is there one?
  - andrerm 7y ago
    The day a journalist loses free speech is the day a reader loses it too. So the value is the same for both.
    - diffeomorphism 7y ago
      I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. Both losing it at the same time does not say anything about the value? Devil's advocate: The journalist loses his job and livelihood. I had nothing to say anyways. Clearly to him it had much more value. I obviously agree that free speech is valuable for everyone (and so is free software), but how do you best explain why?
- mackrevinack 7y ago
  disclaimer: im a noob when it comes to licences so someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong a company can take something that is MIT licensed and make part of their closed source application. or they could start out as open source project and then later decide to close source it. with GPL they could do pretty much the same thing, but the only caveat is they would have to share back any improvements they make to the parts that were gpl licenced. the first example would cut off a user from being able to access the source and modify it themselves or even worse they might have to start paying a fee to use it. although I think a company can still charge a fee even if they are using something that is under gpl, but with this scenario people are free to take the source and use it in another project if they wish. if an MIT licence was used then that company is under no obligation to share any improvements they make