5 ms·
Sadly not licensed under the GPL.
by globular-toast 3y ago
Sadly not licensed under the GPL.
- kyykky 3y agoIs there a benefit in using GPL for text editors?
- kleiba 3y agoOnly the same benefit as for any software.
- lupusreal 3y agoIt prevents the editor from (legally) becoming proprietary software which deprives users of their software freedoms.
- Jtsummers 3y agoI suspect that if someone is in a position where they are compelled to purchase and use the proprietary version and not the free (and available) version, they already lack most software freedoms. Probably several other, more important, freedoms as well.
- globular-toast 3y agoLicences like MIT optimise individual freedom: they give each user the freedom to do anything including restricting the freedom of others. Licences like GPL optimise community freedom: they give each user the freedom to do anything except restricting the freedom of others. Think of it like local vs global optimisation.
- GrumpySloth 3y agoMIT doesn’t give anyone the ability to restrict the freedom of others. When you fork a project and use a difference licence for it, the original project remains under MIT.
- roenxi 3y agoAlthough I agree, notice that the only act the GPL compels someone to do is to hand over the source code with the program. MIT doesn't give people a freedom to restrict because that isn't a freedom. The restriction is always done by the legal system. The GPL is just an attempt to stop the legal system from interfering in the market to restrict user freedom. So both licenses are actually communicating to a 3rd party (a judge) under what circumstances they should restrict the freedom of others. GPL says to stay out of it as long as people are sharing their source code and MIT says get involved sometimes/its complicated. It isn't a practical difference, but it is philosophically important. The amount of personal freedom both licenses give is technically quite similar.
- globular-toast 3y agoThat's right, the GPL and other copyleft licences in fact aim to disable copyright, this restoring us back to how things should be with no copyright.
- GrumpySloth 3y agoI can understand wanting to restrict use of something a person created using a restrictive licence. I can’t understand being sad about someone else not restricting what they created. To me it looks like someone being sad after seeing someone else giving out free ice cream, even though the person being sad didn’t contribute to making the ice cream.
- samatman 3y agoI call these personality types free software socialists, and free software communists. The free software socialists are my friends. The free software communists are not.
- stolen_biscuit 3y agoCalling the GPL a restrictive license is a bit like saying you can't cut down the trees in a public park and sell the wood is restrictive.
- GrumpySloth 3y agoThat analogy would make sense only if cutting trees left the trees intact and didn’t annoy people in the park with noise etc. Alas, it’s nonsense.
- tshirttime 3y agoFor those confused by the dangling modifier, he means the combined act of cutting the trees and selling the wood is restrictive. Also, a terrible analogy since trees are an exhaustible resource within a meaningful time range.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- globular-toast 3y agoGPL is more free than MIT, not less. I would never make significant contributions to a non-GPL project.