2 ms·
>MIT/permissive licenses are for developer freedom, but xGPL and other strong copyleft licenses are for users' freedom. That's a bit to simple, being a user of
by nix23 4y ago
>MIT/permissive licenses are for developer freedom, but xGPL and other strong copyleft licenses are for users' freedom.
That's a bit to simple, being a user of FreeBSD i just want opensource, i would never use a FreeBSD-fork that is no open anymore, so i have even more freedom as a dev and a user.
>Again we have Intel, AMD/ATI,
The Intel driver is BSD and ATI is MIT, and i think it's absolutely logical for those two to take that license's, and not GPL.
But please don't get me wrong, GPL2 is a great license.
- TremendousJudge 4y agoI think that the point here is that as a user, with MIT you may not have a choice. Of course, you would never choose a FreeBSD fork that isn't open. But if you buy a TV running a closed fork of FreeBSD you might never even find out. In that case, it was great for the developer: they were able to get a great OS for free. However, it was not great for the user: they get a closed OS that they can't patch, upgrade, downgrade, or change in any way that the developer doesn't approve of.
- nix23 4y agoOk look, i have that TV that run's Linux, they even send me a "CD" with all the source-code of linux/gnu of it, BUT there is that highly proprietary module loaded into the kernel, firmware and so on, so patching my TV is as easy as re-engineering a whole closed-source system. In theory the idea is great, in reality it makes nearly no difference.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]