3 ms·
I’m convinced that the MIT license and other public domain-like licenses are the worst licenses to actually use if you’re not a FOSS ideologue. So, most people.
by andrewmcwatters 3y ago
I’m convinced that the MIT license and other public domain-like licenses are the worst licenses to actually use if you’re not a FOSS ideologue. So, most people. It works against your own interests in just a subtle enough way that also works against the interests of those who use your software.
At a bare minimum, you should probably at least use the GNU General Public License version 2.
- account42 3y agoI generally agree, the only problem, especially for libraries, is that copyleft licenses tend to be incompatible. So e.g. you can't transfer code between GPL2-only and GPL3-only projects.
- kijin 3y agoExactly. Everything I've released over the last several years is GPLv2 or higher. If you don't like that, don't worry, I won't tell you to fuck off or give you a lecture on free software. You just need to pay me. Business is business. :)
- andrewmcwatters 3y agoYeah, I stopped using the MIT license moving forward some time ago. There’s no benefit whatsoever to the author, and there are perfectly permissible licenses that one can still use without allowing others to walk all over you.
- SomeoneFromCA 3y agoWell, it depends on the nature of the product. Some trivial things which has 100 LOC in it is not worth GPLing, as everyone including yourself would benefit from a BSD/public domain license.