4 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.
- zigzag312 3y ago
  Explain how it is not the same case? There seems to be some misunderstanding. If dependency is licensed under GPL, a commercial project cannot be distributed to users (to run locally), thus it is always offered as a web service instead. If dependency is licensed under MIT, a commercial project can be distributed to users and run locally.
  - Karellen 3y ago
    Oh, got it. Sorry, when you originally wrote "Many corporations don't distribute GPL derived software to users, but "package" it as a web service instead" I didn't get the connection that they were packaging it as a web service because they were deriving from GPL'd base. I was coming from the position that companies offer their products as web services, rather than distributing the program itself, because it allows them to lock their customers in, and track what their customers are doing, and hold their customers data hostage, and basically do all the shitty stuff that web services companies do. And some of them happen to base these services on GPL'd code, because the GPL doesn't prevent that - just like MIT. It didn't occur to me that a company would write a program that they wanted to sell as a redistributable entity, but be so dependent on a particular GPL'd library that they could not find a commercial equivalent of, or rewrite the essential parts they needed themselves, that they'd change their whole sales/availability strategy and reluctantly make the program a web service instead. Hence my misunderstanding. My bad.
3836293648 3y ago
GPL doesn't requrie you to release all your changes publically. It requires you to offer source code to anyone you've given a binary to

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.

zigzag312 3y ago
Explain how it is not the same case? There seems to be some misunderstanding. If dependency is licensed under GPL, a commercial project cannot be distributed to users (to run locally), thus it is always offered as a web service instead. If dependency is licensed under MIT, a commercial project can be distributed to users and run locally.
- Karellen 3y ago
  Oh, got it. Sorry, when you originally wrote "Many corporations don't distribute GPL derived software to users, but "package" it as a web service instead" I didn't get the connection that they were packaging it as a web service because they were deriving from GPL'd base. I was coming from the position that companies offer their products as web services, rather than distributing the program itself, because it allows them to lock their customers in, and track what their customers are doing, and hold their customers data hostage, and basically do all the shitty stuff that web services companies do. And some of them happen to base these services on GPL'd code, because the GPL doesn't prevent that - just like MIT. It didn't occur to me that a company would write a program that they wanted to sell as a redistributable entity, but be so dependent on a particular GPL'd library that they could not find a commercial equivalent of, or rewrite the essential parts they needed themselves, that they'd change their whole sales/availability strategy and reluctantly make the program a web service instead. Hence my misunderstanding. My bad.

3836293648 3y ago

GPL doesn't requrie you to release all your changes publically. It requires you to offer source code to anyone you've given a binary to