4 ms·
"Licensing should absolutely be considered", I agree but for all the opposite reasons. I release all my code under MIT/BSD as I do not want anyone, at all, for
by dazzawazza 7y ago
"Licensing should absolutely be considered", I agree but for all the opposite reasons. I release all my code under MIT/BSD as I do not want anyone, at all, for any reason, to not be able to use my code, for good or for bad as defined by me. I also prefer the BSD community as it lacks the hubris of "a greater mission" that the GPL fosters leading to this notion of good and bad.
Plurality of thought, use and outcomes are a good thing.
- AsyncAwait 7y agoJust wanted to point out that the GPL isn't really about 'good'/'bad' morality choices, in fact one of the pillars of copyleft is that it does not make such subjective choices. If that wasn't the case, companies like IBM wouldn't be able to use GPL'd software, as they famously weren't able with Crockford's "don't do evil" license. The GPL is really about guarantees. You rely on guarantees every day to be able to go about your day. People like me just wish to extend certain guarantees, (not warranty), to the software we write.