3 ms·

The GPL is the most free license, because it guarantees the propagation of freedom. The MIT license does the opposite. If I want my code to be hidden, mangled,

The GPL is the most free license, because it guarantees the propagation of freedom. The MIT license does the opposite. If I want my code to be hidden, mangled, and exploited to make some asshole in a suit rich at the detriment of the rest of society, I already have plenty of opportunities for that: paid work. All the MIT license is good for is devaluing paid software work in the eyes of the ownership class. In contrast, the GPL simply codifies the social contract that should apply to every social interaction: basic respect via repayment in kind. You got something for free! Why not likewise pay it forward by taking an action that also costs you nothing? The GPL just asks that you engage in basic human decency. The MIT license declares you a mark.

Brian_K_White 3y ago
I think MIT declares you either a mark or a saint. I use MIT for trivial things like examples, asnswers to questions where you have to declare something or the answer or example is of no value and then why bother writing it. But nothing substantial. I "selfishly" only want to contribute to the guaranteed for all and eternity pool. So I don't use or recommend MIT. But I do think that at least some examples of MIT are the result of the authors being essentially saints. Giving so selflessly that they even give to the devil, making the world a better place only through the mechanism that the most people end up using the best functioning available code. IE it's better that Microsoft sell the use of the TCP/IP stack, than have users end up having to use something else. It was them being better than I think they have to be, and better than I am, but not actually misguided and harmful. Many uses of MIT do strike me as exactly misguided and long term more harmful than helpful, but not automatically all. I'm just not a saint myself and don't require anyone else to be either, and I think the world would be at least just as fine if there never was any MIT code but only normal copyrighted and full GPL style.
iraqmtpizza 3y ago
GPL is expressly designed for assholes who want to control people. MIT license allows people to control code (the horror!).
- Dah00n 3y ago
  Please add something to the conversation?
  - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
    [flagged]
ghaff 3y ago
Realize that as long as you’re using GPL code in some internal application as many many companies do, there’s no requirement to make anything available publicly if the application isn’t distributed.
- jrm4 3y ago
  Right. In other words, the GPL absolutely permits you to - take GPL code, do whatever you want with it and NEVER GIVE IT TO ANYONE. - take GPL code, have someone to pay you do something crazy with it, give it to them and neither of you choose to never give it to anyone. The only thing the GPL says is that, whoever you give it to gets all the rights you got when you took it.
  - hansvm 3y ago
    But the GPL explicitly forbids you from forbidding that person who paid you from sharing the code. If an employee works on a Linux driver that you'd prefer be a trade secret, those GPL imports are going to be a massive problem.
    - lelanthran 3y ago
      > But the GPL explicitly forbids you from forbidding that person who paid you from sharing the code. Well, yes. That's the point after all - you took someone else's code, made changes to it, gave it to a third person, so now you can't very well tell that third person "Sorry, that code I gave you is now a secret!" > If an employee works on a Linux driver that you'd prefer be a trade secret, those GPL imports are going to be a massive problem. In theory, sure. In practice, it hasn't stopped any manufacturer from distributing binary blobs. Nvidia, with proprietary drivers, is still the most popular graphics card on Linux[1]. So here we see that there is no problem for a vendor to be wildly profitable and have the best penetration of all its competitors even though they are strictly adhering to the license. If an employee is working on any Linux driver, your business is depending on the success of Linux itself to make that driver economically viable to develop. If your success depends on building on GPL code and not giving back, then maybe try to find success elsewhere. [1] IIRC, that is. I last checked the Steam stats a long time ago, they may have changed.

Brian_K_White 3y ago

I think MIT declares you either a mark or a saint. I use MIT for trivial things like examples, asnswers to questions where you have to declare something or the answer or example is of no value and then why bother writing it. But nothing substantial. I "selfishly" only want to contribute to the guaranteed for all and eternity pool. So I don't use or recommend MIT. But I do think that at least some examples of MIT are the result of the authors being essentially saints. Giving so selflessly that they even give to the devil, making the world a better place only through the mechanism that the most people end up using the best functioning available code. IE it's better that Microsoft sell the use of the TCP/IP stack, than have users end up having to use something else. It was them being better than I think they have to be, and better than I am, but not actually misguided and harmful. Many uses of MIT do strike me as exactly misguided and long term more harmful than helpful, but not automatically all. I'm just not a saint myself and don't require anyone else to be either, and I think the world would be at least just as fine if there never was any MIT code but only normal copyrighted and full GPL style.

iraqmtpizza 3y ago

GPL is expressly designed for assholes who want to control people. MIT license allows people to control code (the horror!).

Dah00n 3y ago
Please add something to the conversation?
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago
  [flagged]

ghaff 3y ago

Realize that as long as you’re using GPL code in some internal application as many many companies do, there’s no requirement to make anything available publicly if the application isn’t distributed.

jrm4 3y ago
Right. In other words, the GPL absolutely permits you to - take GPL code, do whatever you want with it and NEVER GIVE IT TO ANYONE. - take GPL code, have someone to pay you do something crazy with it, give it to them and neither of you choose to never give it to anyone. The only thing the GPL says is that, whoever you give it to gets all the rights you got when you took it.
- hansvm 3y ago
  But the GPL explicitly forbids you from forbidding that person who paid you from sharing the code. If an employee works on a Linux driver that you'd prefer be a trade secret, those GPL imports are going to be a massive problem.
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > But the GPL explicitly forbids you from forbidding that person who paid you from sharing the code. Well, yes. That's the point after all - you took someone else's code, made changes to it, gave it to a third person, so now you can't very well tell that third person "Sorry, that code I gave you is now a secret!" > If an employee works on a Linux driver that you'd prefer be a trade secret, those GPL imports are going to be a massive problem. In theory, sure. In practice, it hasn't stopped any manufacturer from distributing binary blobs. Nvidia, with proprietary drivers, is still the most popular graphics card on Linux[1]. So here we see that there is no problem for a vendor to be wildly profitable and have the best penetration of all its competitors even though they are strictly adhering to the license. If an employee is working on any Linux driver, your business is depending on the success of Linux itself to make that driver economically viable to develop. If your success depends on building on GPL code and not giving back, then maybe try to find success elsewhere. [1] IIRC, that is. I last checked the Steam stats a long time ago, they may have changed.