2 ms·
GPL forces code others write for your project to also be GPL. that is a loss of freedom for that contributor. if I license something with the MIT license, any
by naikrovek 4y ago
GPL forces code others write for your project to also be GPL. that is a loss of freedom for that contributor.
if I license something with the MIT license, anyone can use it for any purpose, and they can take my code with their modifications private if they want, meaning those entities are free to do what they want, and the code I released is still freely available just like it was before. I lose nothing, and no freedoms were taken from anyone who uses my code.
- kragen 4y agoWindows Terminal isn't licensed under any of the various MIT licenses, though; it's licensed under the Windows EULA. The Windows EULA forces code others write for Windows Terminal to never exist in the first place, and it forces the people on the Windows Terminal team to lose access to their own code if they leave Microsoft. So moving Windows Terminal to the GPL2 would be a gain of freedom for all those people. Only Satya Nadella would suffer a loss of freedom. That sort of simple numerical counting isn't enough for an ethical argument, of course. If my house is converted to a public park, then everyone gains the freedom to drink beer in it, or at least everyone in Buenos Aires does, and only I lose any freedom, like the freedom to sleep in a dry bed when it's raining without raucous beer-drinkers guffawing all around me. But this is still a net loss because the benefits to everyone else are not as important as the loss to me. In the Windows Terminal case, the situation is the other way around: Nadella would suffer a loss of freedom that affects him only in a de minimis way, while everyone else would gain substantially.