3 ms·
Well I happen to agree with you, but it's a tough argument to get into on the Internet, so I avoid it when possible. To me, a license like MIT is "obviously" m
by samatman 6y ago
Well I happen to agree with you, but it's a tough argument to get into on the Internet, so I avoid it when possible.
To me, a license like MIT is "obviously" more free than GPL, which is more restrictive. The FSF has a somewhat circuitous argument for how GPL results in more net freedom, somehow, but I don't buy it.
Both are free enough, I suppose. There's something about the FSF project of using the master's tools (copyright restrictions) to dismantle the master's house (copyright itself) that's never sat entirely right with me.
The solution is easy though: use a permissive license to release my software. So I do.
- wrycoder 6y agoYes, the GPL is deliberately more restrictive. Put briefly, it’s designed to prevent someone from taking your software and releasing it under a license more restrictive than the GPL itself. It enforces the right to run the software, study it, distribute changed versions, and benefit from other people’s changes. With the MIT license, anyone can take the software you wrote, change it to add features, wrap it up in a fancy package, and sell it without source code access. You wouldn’t be able to even run the new version without buying a copy. Stallman has been explaining this for nearly forty years. He even wrote a book about it. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ https://shop.fsf.org/books-docs/free-software-free-society-selected-essays-richard-m-stallman-3rd-edition https://shop.fsf.org/books-docs/free-software-free-society-s...