9 ms·
why MIT license ? that is bound to be turnoff for a lot of folks. also, a minor nit: there are still a lot of work [1] that needs to be done, and imho, it is a
by signa11 5y ago
why MIT license ? that is bound to be turnoff for a lot of folks.
also, a minor nit: there are still a lot of work [1] that needs to be done, and imho, it is a bit premature to title this article as is presented here.
[1] https://github.com/uutils/coreutils#utilities https://github.com/uutils/coreutils#utilities
- xvedejas 5y agoIs it? I thought it was as standard as and on pretty much equal footing with BSD and Apache licenses. Is it substantially different?
- no_wizard 5y agoWho, exactly? I think most don’t care, and big corps love the MIT license
- GhettoComputers 5y agoDon’t they love them all? Free software in general is nice, PS3 ran Linux, was based on BSD, and I’m sure they used MIT software somewhere there too.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y agoBig corps love permissive licenses; they do not love all open source licenses, such as AGPL.
- GhettoComputers 5y agoI never heard of it, and I never seen it being used, whats a big project that uses it?
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon_(software) would be one major example
- GhettoComputers 5y ago>Big corps love permissive licenses; they do not love all open source licenses, such as AGPL. Doesn't Microsoft love using Linux for azure, and contributes to it heavily in code and money? Using binary blobs is how they can get around others using their contributions, and it seems like copilot has made a mockery of all the licenses anyway. >Mastodon Oh interesting, looks like it was forked by corporations though including Trump's Truth Media, and Gab, and Truth Media just shows the boilerplate github source code. To me it still seems they love all free code.
- woodruffw 5y agoWho is MIT a turnoff for? It’s strictly more permissive on the consumer side than GPL is. Which isn’t to say anything about how a project ought to be licensed; just that MIT enjoys overwhelming popularity with newer projects.
- rackjack 5y agoMIT vs GPL brought up again? Flame war! Flame war! Flame war!
- darthrupert 5y agoOk, let's go! You're stupid and probably ugly for wanting a flamewar!
- nirse 5y agoNo, he's right. We're rubber and you're glue!
- cakrome 5y agoWhat I know is if projects use permissive licenses, the software end users getting is usually proprietary. Copyleft is designed to prevent that from happening.
- torstenvl 5y agoIt doesn't matter if some other project is proprietary. The proprietary company's proprietary product was always going to be proprietary. What matters is whether they contribute back anything to open source. And it's a hell of a lot easier to get Legal to sign off on contributing back bug fixes and enhancements on a piecemeal basis rather than adding a recurring obligation to the books.
- karatinversion 5y ago> The proprietary company's proprietary product was always going to be proprietary. A lot is companies would have preferred to have proprietary operating systems, but the Linux license prevents them.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hayd 5y agoWhat would be a better license ? (If you want GPL you can keep using GNU...)