4 ms·

MIT licence really suitable? https://discourse.redox-os.org/t/mit-licence-really-suitable/92 https://discourse.redox-os.org/t/mit-licence-really-suitable...

wmf 3y ago
That's a real blast from the past. We're now in the post-open-source era where people don't even look at licenses (as long as they're OSI approved).
- hobs 3y ago
  What lawyers are you talking to, because mine still care :)
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Our legal department definitely cares.
SpecialistK 3y ago
Spoiler alert: people in the FLOSS space have different opinions on copyleft vs permissive licenses.
zigzag312 3y ago
From that thread: > The choice of MIT is not an arbitrary one ... > We wanted to encourage the use, modification, and packaging of Redox in absolutely all realms. Open source should be open, for everyone. There’s absolutely no reason for limiting the usage of the software. Therefore, MIT was the license of choice. ... > We like to have a decentralized structure of the project, allowing people to do whatever they want, no matter how they intend to share it. Based on their goals, the answer seems to be yes.
- Karellen 3y ago
  > The GPL is good for forcing people who make changes to the source to contribute back. [...] The GPL is upstream-centric, the MIT license is downstream-centric. An interesting take. It doesn't match my understanding of the GPL though. AIUI, the GPL does not require that you send your changes "back"/"upstream". However, it does require that you make the source code to your changes available downstream, to the people you distribute the code to. Conversely, MIT does not require that you make your changes open and available to downstream users. > Open source should be open, for everyone. ...for everyone, except for users of modified versions of the project, apparently? Look, it's their project. If they want to distribute it under MIT, that's their right. I just get a bit frustrated when the rationales for using permissive licenses don't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
  - zigzag312 3y ago
    > it [GPL] does require that you make the source code to your changes available downstream, to the people you distribute the code to Many corporations don't distribute GPL derived software to users, but "package" it as a web service instead. That way they are not required to make their changes open and available to users. > [> Open source should be open, for everyone] ...for everyone, except for users of modified versions of the project, apparently? If modifications provide enough added value to users (so they use less open modified version instead of the open source product), shouldn't the developers be able to freely decide which business model they want to utilize? Not everything can be made sustainable using the GPL license.
    - Karellen 3y ago
      > Many corporations don't distribute GPL derived software to users, but "package" it as a web service instead. Then what benefits does the MIT license give in that case? > Not everything can be made sustainable using the GPL license. That's a fair argument to make. But it's not the one that was being made upthread.
      - zigzag312 3y ago
        > Then what benefits does the MIT license give in that case? It allows development of commercial products where software runs locally, where users don't have to share their data with the corporation. There are always some tradeoffs when choosing a license.
        Karellen 3y ago
        > > > Many corporations don't distribute GPL derived software to users, but "package" it as a web service instead. > > Then what benefits does the MIT license give in that case? > It allows development of commercial products where software runs locally, Those are not the same case! FFS. Stop moving the gorram goalposts.
        3y ago
teddyh 3y ago
Even if they persist in wanting a permissive license, I would still really insist they at least use the Apache 2.0 license, which has a patent grant.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
LeFantome 3y ago
Superior ( in my humble opinion )

wmf 3y ago

That's a real blast from the past. We're now in the post-open-source era where people don't even look at licenses (as long as they're OSI approved).

hobs 3y ago
What lawyers are you talking to, because mine still care :)
pjmlp 3y ago
Our legal department definitely cares.

SpecialistK 3y ago

Spoiler alert: people in the FLOSS space have different opinions on copyleft vs permissive licenses.

zigzag312 3y ago

From that thread: > The choice of MIT is not an arbitrary one ... > We wanted to encourage the use, modification, and packaging of Redox in absolutely all realms. Open source should be open, for everyone. There’s absolutely no reason for limiting the usage of the software. Therefore, MIT was the license of choice. ... > We like to have a decentralized structure of the project, allowing people to do whatever they want, no matter how they intend to share it. Based on their goals, the answer seems to be yes.

Karellen 3y ago
> The GPL is good for forcing people who make changes to the source to contribute back. [...] The GPL is upstream-centric, the MIT license is downstream-centric. An interesting take. It doesn't match my understanding of the GPL though. AIUI, the GPL does not require that you send your changes "back"/"upstream". However, it does require that you make the source code to your changes available downstream, to the people you distribute the code to. Conversely, MIT does not require that you make your changes open and available to downstream users. > Open source should be open, for everyone. ...for everyone, except for users of modified versions of the project, apparently? Look, it's their project. If they want to distribute it under MIT, that's their right. I just get a bit frustrated when the rationales for using permissive licenses don't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
- zigzag312 3y ago
  > it [GPL] does require that you make the source code to your changes available downstream, to the people you distribute the code to Many corporations don't distribute GPL derived software to users, but "package" it as a web service instead. That way they are not required to make their changes open and available to users. > [> Open source should be open, for everyone] ...for everyone, except for users of modified versions of the project, apparently? If modifications provide enough added value to users (so they use less open modified version instead of the open source product), shouldn't the developers be able to freely decide which business model they want to utilize? Not everything can be made sustainable using the GPL license.
  - Karellen 3y ago
    > Many corporations don't distribute GPL derived software to users, but "package" it as a web service instead. Then what benefits does the MIT license give in that case? > Not everything can be made sustainable using the GPL license. That's a fair argument to make. But it's not the one that was being made upthread.
    - zigzag312 3y ago
      > Then what benefits does the MIT license give in that case? It allows development of commercial products where software runs locally, where users don't have to share their data with the corporation. There are always some tradeoffs when choosing a license.
      - Karellen 3y ago
        > > > Many corporations don't distribute GPL derived software to users, but "package" it as a web service instead. > > Then what benefits does the MIT license give in that case? > It allows development of commercial products where software runs locally, Those are not the same case! FFS. Stop moving the gorram goalposts.
        3y ago

teddyh 3y ago

Even if they persist in wanting a permissive license, I would still really insist they at least use the Apache 2.0 license, which has a patent grant.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

LeFantome 3y ago

Superior ( in my humble opinion )