3 ms·
To consumers, it isn’t. It removes beneficial terms from users.
by ilikehurdles 3y ago
To consumers, it isn’t. It removes beneficial terms from users.
- master-lincoln 3y agoThis 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 agoIt 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 agoyeah seems like they read your comment wrong
- master-lincoln 3y agoindeed, sorry, not sure why I got this wrong
- thebruce87m 3y agoConversely, 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.