2 ms·
Quite some confusion here. > If it's GPL, or AGPL, someone can [...]. If it's MIT, the person who buys it ISN'T allowed to [...] MIT gives strictly more right
by jraph 2y ago
Quite some confusion here.
> If it's GPL, or AGPL, someone can [...]. If it's MIT, the person who buys it ISN'T allowed to [...]
MIT gives strictly more rights to the user than GPL. If you can do something under the (A)GPL, you can definitely do so under MIT. In all cases, as someone who receives a copy, you are allowed to sell copies regardless. Under the (A)GPL, you will need to provide the sources on request as well.
> MIT means SOMEONE ELSE can (for all practical purposes) copyright YOUR software
You always keep the copyright on your code (unless there is a copyright assignment), regardless of the license.
MIT allows someone else to not share the source when redistributing some software under MIT or a derivative.
- immibis 2y agoMIT gives the user the right to take away another user's rights, potentially leading to fewer rights overall. I give foobar to Alice under AGPL. Alice gives foobar to Bob, Carol, and Dave, under AGPL so I don't sue her. I give barbaz to Alice. It's MIT. Alice gives barbaz to Bob, Carol and Dave under a proprietary license. I can't do anything about it, because I gave her that right. Which scenario has more user freedom?
- jraph 2y agoSure, and I happen to agree, I release stuff under (A)GPL for exactly this reason. I guess the confusion stems from this phrasing: > If it's MIT, the person who buys it ISN'T allowed to give away more copies for free if the seller doesn't want them to I assume you meant: > If it's MIT, a seller is allowed to relicense under a proprietary license and then the buyer isn't allowed to give away copies I had understood the opposite.