4 ms·

The article doesn't touch on it, but this explains why open source advocates prefer permissive licenses like MIT (which is in the OSS view "more free" because t

The article doesn't touch on it, but this explains why open source advocates prefer permissive licenses like MIT (which is in the OSS view "more free" because they grant more freedom to developers - even the freedom to make their software proprietary!), while free software advocates prefer copyleft licenses like GPL, which grants more freedoms to end users at expense of the developer themselves

paxcoder 4y ago
[dead]
DangitBobby 4y ago
"End users" that may want to modify code are pretty much always developers themselves, by definition. By the time they are modifying source code, they are developing. So I'm not sure the distinction FOSS makes between end users and developers is actually meaningful in practice. Also I need it explained to me how an end user is more free to modify under a GPL license than MIT.
- gpderetta 4y ago
  The end user might not get the code at all if under MIT license.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    Good chance they won't get it under GPL either, since companies just won't use it.
    - pabs3 4y ago
      Lots of companies use GPL code and don't distribute it to users either, for example Vizio. Some of those also violate the BSD/MIT licenses. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
- carapace 4y ago
  Context counts. > programming new editing commands was so convenient that even the secretaries in his [Bernie Greenberg] office started learning how to use it. They used a manual someone had written which showed how to extend Emacs, but didn't say it was a programming. So the secretaries, who believed they couldn't do programming, weren't scared off. They read the manual, discovered they could do useful things and they learned to program. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.html
Brian_K_White 4y ago
I sure don't prefer MIT. GPL and CC-BY-SA all the way. People who advocate for MIT are compatible, acceptable, harmlessly misguided as far as I'm concerned. IE I don't hate them or avoid their works, but do consider them not to be helping themselves or the world as much as they could, and for free with no extra effort. But they aren't hurting either. I do not call failing to do the most possible good according to my views to be equivalent to doing harm. MIT is at least not harming. But also at best not harming.
guilhas 4y ago
MIT license makes it easier to exploit a developer's free work

paxcoder 4y ago

[dead]

DangitBobby 4y ago

"End users" that may want to modify code are pretty much always developers themselves, by definition. By the time they are modifying source code, they are developing. So I'm not sure the distinction FOSS makes between end users and developers is actually meaningful in practice. Also I need it explained to me how an end user is more free to modify under a GPL license than MIT.

gpderetta 4y ago
The end user might not get the code at all if under MIT license.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  Good chance they won't get it under GPL either, since companies just won't use it.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    Lots of companies use GPL code and don't distribute it to users either, for example Vizio. Some of those also violate the BSD/MIT licenses. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
carapace 4y ago
Context counts. > programming new editing commands was so convenient that even the secretaries in his [Bernie Greenberg] office started learning how to use it. They used a manual someone had written which showed how to extend Emacs, but didn't say it was a programming. So the secretaries, who believed they couldn't do programming, weren't scared off. They read the manual, discovered they could do useful things and they learned to program. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.html

Brian_K_White 4y ago

I sure don't prefer MIT. GPL and CC-BY-SA all the way. People who advocate for MIT are compatible, acceptable, harmlessly misguided as far as I'm concerned. IE I don't hate them or avoid their works, but do consider them not to be helping themselves or the world as much as they could, and for free with no extra effort. But they aren't hurting either. I do not call failing to do the most possible good according to my views to be equivalent to doing harm. MIT is at least not harming. But also at best not harming.

guilhas 4y ago

MIT license makes it easier to exploit a developer's free work