3 ms·

I don't know much about licenses, but why is MIT preferable over GPL used by the GNU coreutils?

by itsphilos 3y ago

ilikehurdles 3y ago
To consumers, it isn’t. It removes beneficial terms from users.
- master-lincoln 3y ago
  This is an ideological view that I would oppose. GPL is beneficial for the user compared to MIT because any improvements made by users of a project will be open for everybody again. With MIT it's just easier to make a profit without giving back. That is not in the interest of consumers
  - ilikehurdles 3y ago
    It sounds like we agree? With the GPL all users have the right to look at the code. With MIT none do. This seems like a pretty straightforward consumer benefit that anyone should be able to acknowledge regardless of which license they develop with.
    - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      yeah seems like they read your comment wrong
    - master-lincoln 3y ago
      indeed, sorry, not sure why I got this wrong
- thebruce87m 3y ago
  Conversely, it means that the software can end up in places it wouldn’t otherwise. This could be better for consumers if the alternative is a poorer quality library with a more permissive license.
master-lincoln 3y ago
MIT licensed projects can be taken and sold by others without sharing any changes made to it. With GPL, all changes when taken by a third party need to be openly available for everybody. So the hardcore FOSS community (which GNU certainly counts to, see Richard Stallmann) is against using MIT and alike as it enables others to profit from your work without giving back any improvements to the open community. (hand wavy, non-detailed explanation - read other sources for clarity) So the MIT license is less restricted for users, but ultimately only in the interest of people looking for profit, not consumers
rcxdude 3y ago
Specifically, if you are making a widget with embedded linux, the anti-tivoisation clauses in GPLv3 are a bit of a pain (even if you are not particularly trying to lock down the system from tinkering): they effectively mean you need to develop and provide an extra partial-update mechanism.
- m4rtink 3y ago
  That's kinda the point - owners of devices should be in control of software their devices are running. Or they are not owners.
drxzcl 3y ago
The MIT license is two paragraphs long. The GPL is little more than a page, plus a very informative preamble. Don’t take anyone’s word for what they say or which is better. Read them.
- chrismorgan 3y ago
  The terms and conditions part of the GPLv3 is 4,600 words long, which in typical formatting will be about 7–9 pages long. Not one.
  - mr_toad 3y ago
    I’m not sure I value the opinion of (or want to use software written by) someone who couldn’t read nine pages.

I don't know much about licenses, but why is MIT preferable over GPL used by the GNU coreutils?

ilikehurdles 3y ago

To consumers, it isn’t. It removes beneficial terms from users.

master-lincoln 3y ago
This is an ideological view that I would oppose. GPL is beneficial for the user compared to MIT because any improvements made by users of a project will be open for everybody again. With MIT it's just easier to make a profit without giving back. That is not in the interest of consumers
- ilikehurdles 3y ago
  It sounds like we agree? With the GPL all users have the right to look at the code. With MIT none do. This seems like a pretty straightforward consumer benefit that anyone should be able to acknowledge regardless of which license they develop with.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    yeah seems like they read your comment wrong
  - master-lincoln 3y ago
    indeed, sorry, not sure why I got this wrong
thebruce87m 3y ago
Conversely, it means that the software can end up in places it wouldn’t otherwise. This could be better for consumers if the alternative is a poorer quality library with a more permissive license.

master-lincoln 3y ago

MIT licensed projects can be taken and sold by others without sharing any changes made to it. With GPL, all changes when taken by a third party need to be openly available for everybody. So the hardcore FOSS community (which GNU certainly counts to, see Richard Stallmann) is against using MIT and alike as it enables others to profit from your work without giving back any improvements to the open community. (hand wavy, non-detailed explanation - read other sources for clarity) So the MIT license is less restricted for users, but ultimately only in the interest of people looking for profit, not consumers

rcxdude 3y ago

Specifically, if you are making a widget with embedded linux, the anti-tivoisation clauses in GPLv3 are a bit of a pain (even if you are not particularly trying to lock down the system from tinkering): they effectively mean you need to develop and provide an extra partial-update mechanism.

m4rtink 3y ago
That's kinda the point - owners of devices should be in control of software their devices are running. Or they are not owners.

drxzcl 3y ago

The MIT license is two paragraphs long. The GPL is little more than a page, plus a very informative preamble. Don’t take anyone’s word for what they say or which is better. Read them.

chrismorgan 3y ago
The terms and conditions part of the GPLv3 is 4,600 words long, which in typical formatting will be about 7–9 pages long. Not one.
- mr_toad 3y ago
  I’m not sure I value the opinion of (or want to use software written by) someone who couldn’t read nine pages.